AT   LOS  ANGELES 


RETIREMENT  <  >F  COLONEL  F.  B. 

BUNNY.  R.A. 
A    SUCCESSOR    APPOINTED. 

Notification  has  been  received  at  the  Bar- 
racks, High  Wycombe,  that  the  Wat- 
have   appointed   Lt.-Colonel   A.    M.   Balfour, 
R  F  A.,  to   succeed   Colonel   F.   B.   Bunny   m 
the  command  of    No.  4  Artillery    Training 
School.    Col.  F.  B.  Bunny,  who  was  on  the 
retired  list,  was  requested  last  June  D 
War  Office  to  volunteer  his  services  in  tprm 
iiiK   No.   4  Training   School,   R.F.A.    (T.),   at 
High  Wycombe.    This  service  Colonel  Bunny 
gladly  undertook.      The  time   has  now   ar- 
rivi'd    whPti    Col.    Bunny's    services    an-    ' 


BRANCH, 

F  CALIFORNIA, 

tARY, 
tES,  CALIF. 


«•<,).(.  \KI.    T.    B.    ,  li.\.' 


longer  required.  The  War  Office  have 
thanked  Col.  P.unny  for  having  come  for- 
ward at  a  time  when  his  services  were  ur- 
gently required,  and  have  noted  him  for 
further  re-employment  if  and  when  an  op- 

PIt  ^interesting  to  note  that  Colonel  Bunny 
retired  from  the  Royal  Artillery  in  August, 
1910,  after  completing  38  years'  service  m 
the  Royal  Artillery,  17  of  which  were  spent 
in  India.  During  his  services,  Col.  Bunny- 
served  in  the  Horse.  Field,  Siege,  and  Garri- 
son Artillery,  and  on  the  Regimental  Staff. 
his  last  appointment  before  coming  to  High 
Wycombe  being  at  Portsmouth,  where 

•i  command  of  the  Royal  Garrison  Ar- 
tillery, Southern  Command. 

MTTTTSBV  r.Rir.KF.T. 


SOCIOLOGY   AND 
MODERN   SOCIAL   PROBLEMS 


BY 

CHARLES  A.  ELLWOOD,  PH.D. 

Professor  of  Sociology,  University  of  Missouri 

Author  of  "Sociology  in  its  Psychological  Aspects,"  "Introduction  to 
Social  Psychology,"  "  The  Social  Problem." 


NEW   EDITION 

45512 


AMERICAN  BOOK  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK  CINCINNATI  CHICAGO 

BOSTON  ATLANTA 


COPYRIGHT,  1910,  19131  1919. 

BY 
CHARLES  A.  ELLWOOD 


Entered  at  Stationers'  Hall,  London 
ELLWOOD,  SOCIOLOGY 

E.  P.    12 


PREFACE  FOR  TEACHERS 


THIS  book  was  originally  written  as  an  elementary  text 

*    in  sociology  for  use  in  high  schools,  colleges,  and  reading 

circles  where  it  is  desired  to  combine  the  study  of  sociology 

with  a  study  of  current  social  problems  on  the  one  hand, 

and  to  correlate  it  with  a  course  in  economics  on  the  other. 

SK  The  generous  reception  and  wide  use  which  the  book  has 

^   enjoyed  since  its  publication  seem  to  indicate  that  there  is 

a  demand  for  a  simple,  concrete  text  in  sociology  in  which 

methodological  discussions  are  reduced  to  a  minimum  and 

the  facts  are  drawn  as  far  as  possible  from  contemporary 

social  life. 

The  original  plan  of  the  book  has  not  been  departed 
.  from;  but  when  the  Federal  Census  of  1910  necessitated 
^  extensive  alterations  in  the  book,  the  opportunity  was 
^  taken  to  give  it  a  somewhat  thorough  revision.    Not  only 
were  statistics  brought  down  to  date  wherever  possible, 
'  but  upon  the  advice  of  teachers  using  the  book  as  a  text, 
considerable  new  material  was  incorporated.    Two  entirely 
new  chapters,  one  on  "The  Bearing  of  Modern  Psychology 
upon  Social  Problems,"  and  the  other  a  "Theoretical  Sum- 
mary," were  added.     It  is  hoped  that  these  will  aid  in 
bringing  out  more  clearly  the  theoretical  implications  of 
the  concrete  problems  studied;  but  as  noted  in  the  text, 
they  may  be  omitted  in  brief  courses  of  study,  such  as 
those  of  reading  circles.     No  chapter  was  added  on  the 
development   of    economic    institutions,    as    several    had 
suggested,   since  it  is  intended  that  the  study  of   this 

3 


4  PREFACE 

text  should  be  accompanied,  or  followed,  by  a  study  of 
economics. 

Again  after  the  Great  War,  the  book  has  been  revised 
and  enlarged  without  altering  its  plan  and  organization. 
The  purpose  of  this  revision  has  been  to  relate  the  text  to 
the  problems  of  reconstruction  now  confronting  the  nation, 
to  bring  statistics  down  to  date  so  far  as  possible,  and  to 
revise  the  lists  of  supplementary  readings.  Thus  as  in 
earlier  editions  those  who  wish  to  do  wider  reading  on  the 
problems  treated  in  this  text  will  find  a  series  of  suitable 
references  at  the  end  of  each  chapter.  The  first  reference 
mentioned  under  the  heading  "For  brief  reading"  is  es- 
pecially commended  to  those  who  can  lay  out  but  a  brief 
course  of  parallel  readings. 

The  fundamental  method  of  the  book  has  not  been 
changed.  The  book  aims  to  illustrate  the  working  of  the 
chief  factors  in  social  organization  and  evolution,  and  so 
the  elementary  principles  of  sociology,  by  the  study  of 
concrete  problems,  especially  through  the  study  of  the  ori- 
gin, development,  structure,  and  functions  of  the  family 
considered  as  a  typical  human  institution.  In  spite  of 
some  criticism,  I  have,  therefore,  continued  to  make  large 
use  of  the  family  as  the  simplest  and,  in  many  ways,  the 
most  typical  form  of  human  association  to  illustrate  socio- 
logical principles.  I  am  firmly  convinced,  after  more  than 
a  dozen  years  of  experience  in  teaching  sociology  to  un- 
derclassmen, that  this  is  a  sound  method.  One  might  say, 
indeed,  that  the  study  of  the  family  is  to  sociology  what 
the  study  of  the  cell,  or  cytology,  is  to  biology,  if  one  were 
not  afraid  of  being  accused  of  employing  the  organic  anal- 
ogy !  While  there  are  many  things  in  human  association 
which  the  student  cannot  perceive  through  the  study  of 


PREFACE  5 

the  family,  yet  it  does  reveal  in  a  most  unmistakable  way 
all  of  the  fundamental  biological  and  psychological  factors 
in  the  social  life.  I  would  especially  commend  the  study 
of  the  history  of  individual  families  through  several  gener- 
ations as  a  form  of  sociological  investigation,  suited  to 
elementary  students,  which  will  bring  out  clearly  the  bio- 
logical and  psychological  forces  shaping  our  Social  life. 
This  method,  now  employed  so  extensively  by  students  of 
eugenics,  is  capable  of  indefinite  expansion  on  the  psycho- 
logical side,  if  attention  is  paid  to  the  interests,  ideals, 
and  traditions  of  individual  families.  The  making  of  such 
family  monographs,  together  with  the  making  of  one  or 
more  community  surveys,  might,  indeed,  well  be  made  the 
necessary  laboratory  or  field  work  in  an  elementary  course 
of  sociology. 

To  bring  out  the  factors  and  principles  of  the  social  life 
not  illustrated  by  the  family,  a  number  of  other  concrete 
social  problems  are  studied.  These  have  been  selected  to 
illustrate  the  more  important  remaining  sociological  prin- 
ciples. They  have  also  been  selected  mainly  from  contem- 
porary American  society,  not  merely  because  it  is  "  prac- 
tical "  to  do  so,  but  also  because  the  United  States  affords 
the  greatest  sociological  laboratory,  for  American  students 
at  least,  that  can  possibly  be  found.  How  foolish  it  would 
be  for  American  students  of  sociology  to  shut  themselves 
up  to  the  uncertain  material  afforded  by  cultural  anthro- 
pology and  ethnology  when  they  have  such  a  wealth  of 
concrete  sociological  data  all  about  them  !  For  the  ele- 
mentary student,  at  any  rate,  there  can  be  no  doubt  as  to 
the  wisdom  of  approaching  sociological  principles  through 
the  study  of  the  concrete  problems  of  the  contemporary 
social  life  with  which  he  is  familiar,  rather  than  through 


6  PREFACE 

the  study  of  some  hypothetically  reconstructed  primitive 
society.  While  all  scientific  methods  should  be  used  by 
the  sociologist,  the  observation,  description,  and  statistical 
study  of  contemporary  society  are  surely  the  most  impor- 
tant for  the  beginner. 

I  wish  again  to  express  my  indebtedness  in  the  prepara- 
tion of  this  book  to  my  former  teachers,  especially  to 
Professor  Willcox  of  Cornell  University  and  to  Professors 
Small  and  Henderson  of  the  University  of  Chicago.  Much 
of  the  substance  and  method  of  this  book  was  derived  from 
their  instruction.  My  main  sources  are  also  indicated  in 
the  lists  of  references. 

CHARLES   A.   ELLWOOD. 
UNIVERSITY  OF  MISSOURI. 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  I 

PAGE 

THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 9 

CHAPTER  II 

THE  BEARING  OF  THE  THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROB- 
LEMS   ." 29 

CHAPTER  III 
THE  BEARING  OF  MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS  . .   57 

CHAPTER  IV 

PRIMARY  GROUPS:  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  IN  HUMAN 
SOCIETY 76 

CHAPTER  V 

THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 93 

CHAPTER  VI 
THE  FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY no 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 131 

CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 145 

7 


8  '      CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  IX 

PAGE 

THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 181 

CHAPTER  X 
THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 211 

CHAPTER  XI 
THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 246 

CHAPTER  XII 
THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 275 

CHAPTER  XIII 
POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM 299 

CHAPTER  XIV 

CRIME 326 

CHAPTER  XV 
SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 354 

CHAPTER  XVI 

EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS 371 

CHAPTER  XVII 

THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 388 

INDEX 409 


SOCIOLOGY  AND 
MODERN  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

CHAPTER  I 
THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

What  is  Society?  —  Perhaps  the  great  question  which  so- 
ciology seeks  to  answer  may  be  this  question  which  we  have 
put  at  the  beginning.  Just  as  biology  seeks  to  answer  the 
question  "What  is  life?";  zoology,  "What  is  an  animal?"; 
botany,  "What  is  a  plant?";  so  sociology  seeks  to  answer 
the  question  "What  is  society?"  But  just  as  biology, 
zoology,  and  botany  cannot  answer  their  questions  until 
those  sciences  have  reached  their  complete  development, 
so  also  sociology  cannot  fully  answer  the  question  "What 
is  society?  "  until  it  reaches  its  final  development.  Never- 
theless, some  conception  or  definition  of  society  is  necessary 
for  the  beginner;  for  hi  the  scientific  discussion  of  any 
problem  we  must  know  first  of  all  what  we  are  talking  about. 
Before  we  can  study  the  social  problems  of  to-day  from  a 
sociological  point  of  view,  then,  we  must  understand  in  a 
general  way  what  society  is,  what  sociology  is,  and  what 
the  relations  are  between  sociology  and  other  sciences. 

The  word  "society"  is  used  popularly  to  designate  a 
variety  of  more  or  less  permanent  human  groups.  A  word 
used  scientifically,  however,  must  be  given  a  definite  mean- 

9 


10  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

ing  corresponding  to  observed  facts.  Now  we  observe  in 
the  first  place  that  collective  or  group  life  is  not  peculiar 
to  man,  but  characterizes  many  animals  and  plants  as  well. 
Mere  collective  or  group  life,  however,  is  not  in  itself  social 
life.  A  clump  of  grasses,  a  forest  of  trees,  a  colony  of  bac- 
teria, or  a  group  of  protozoa  may  show  interdependence  in 
the  life  activities  of  their  separate  units,  but  we  .do  not 
usually  call  them  "  societies,"  because,  so  far  as  we  know, 
their  individuals  do  not  have  conscious  relations.  Such 
groups  of  lowly  organisms  do,  however,  show  the  first  mark 
of  social  life  hi  that  they  carry  on  certain  life  activities  in 
common.  But  interdependence  in  life  activities  constitutes 
what  we  call  "comradeship"  or  "society"  only  when  it 
reaches  the  conscious  or  mental  plane. 

The  second  mark  of  social  life,  accordingly,  is  the  exist- 
ence of  conscious  relations  among  the  members  of  a  group. 
The  group  life  is  carried  on  by  means  of  mental  interactions; 
that  is,  the  interdependence  in  life  activities  is  more  or 
less  guided  and  controlled  by  conscious  processes.  Using 
the  term  in  a  concrete  sense,  then,  we  may  say  that  a 
society  is  any  group  of  individuals  who  carry  on  a  common 
life  by  means  of  conscious  relations.  We  say  "conscious 
relations,"  because  it  is  not  necessary  that  these  relations 
be  specialized  into  imitative  or  sympathetic,  economic  or 
political  relations  to  make  society  or  social  life.  Society 
is  constituted  by  the  mental  interaction  of  individuals  and 
exists  wherever  two  or  more  individuals  have  reciprocal 
conscious  relations  to  each  other.  Dependence  upon  a 
common  economic  environment,  or  mere  contiguity  in 
space,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not  sufficient  to  constitute 
society.  It  is  mental  interdependence,  the  contact  and 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  II 

overlapping  of  our  inner  selves,  which  makes  possible  that 
form  of  collective  life  which  we  call  "society."  Groups  of 
plants  do  not  constitute  true  societies  unless  it  can  be 
shown  that  they  have  some  degree  of  mental  life.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  is  no  reason  for  withholding  the  term 
society  from  many  animal  groups.  These  animal  societies, 
however,  are  very  different  in  many  respects  from  human 
society,  and  are  of  interest  to  us  only  as  certain  of  their 
forms  throw  light  upon  human  society. 

Certain  faulty  conceptions  of  society  are  prevalent, 
against  which  the  beginner  must  be  warned.  In  the  writings 
of  European  sociologists  the  word  society  is  often  used  as 
nearly  synonymous  with  the  state  or  nation.  Now  the 
state  or  nation  is  a  group  of  people  politically  organized  into 
an  independent  government,  and  it  is  only  one  of  many 
forms  of  human  society.  To  identify  society  with  the 
state  leads  to  many  errors,  both  in  theory  and  in  practice. 
Another  conception  of  society  would  make  it  synonymous 
with  the  cultural  group  or  civilization.  A  society,  accord- 
ing to  this  conception,  is  any  group  of  people  that  have  a 
common  civilization,  or  that  are  bearers  of  a  certain  type  of 
culture.  Christendom,  for  example,  would  constitute  a 
society.  But  cultural  groups  again  are  only  one  form  of 
human  society.  Nations  and  civilizations  are  very  imposing 
forms  of  human  society,  and  hence  they  have  attracted 
the  attention  of  social  thinkers  hi  the  past  to  the  neglect 
of  the  more  humble  forms. 

Any  form  of  association,  or  social  group,  if  studied  from 
the  point  of  view  of  organization  and  development,  whether 
it  be  a  family,  a  neighborhood  group,  a  city,  a  nation,  a 
party,  or  a  trade  union,  will  serve  to  reveal  many  of  the 


12  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

problems  of  sociology.  All  forms  of  association  are  of  in- 
terest to  the  sociologist,  though  not  all  are  of  equal  im- 
portance. The  natural,  genetic  social  groups,  which  we  may 
call  "communities,"  serve  best  to  exhibit  sociological  prob- 
lems. Through  the  study  of  such  simple  and  primary  groups 
as  the  family  and  the  neighborhood  group,  for  example,  the 
problems  of  sociology  can  be  much  better  attacked  than 
through  the  study  of  society  at  large  or  association  in  gen- 
eral. In  this  text  we  shall  take  the  family  as  the  simplest 
and  in  many  ways  the  most  typical  form  of  human  associa- 
tion, to  illustrate  concretely  the  laws  and  principles  of  social 
organization  and  development  in  general. 

From  what  has  been  said  it  may  be  inferred  that  society 
as  a  scientific  term  is  nearly  synonymous  with  the  abstract 
term  association,  and  this  is  correct.  Association,  indeed, 
may  be  regarded  as  the  more  scientific  term  of  the  two; 
at  any  rate  it  indicates  more  exactly  what  the  sociologist 
deals  with.  A  word  may  be  said  also  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  social.  The  sense  in  which  this  word  will  gen- 
erally be  used  in  this  text  is  that  of  a  collective  adjective, 
referring  to  all  that  pertains  to  or  relates  to  society  in  any 
way.  The  word  social  is  much  broader  than  the  words  in- 
dustrial, political,  moral,  religious,  and  embraces  them  all; 
that  is,  social  phenomena  are  all  phenomena  which  involve 
the  interaction  of  two  or  more  individuals. 

Phases  of  Social  Life.  —  Social  life  in  its  broadest  sense, 
as  we  have  seen,  includes  the  group  life  of  the  animals  be- 
low man.  Social  evolution  begins  with  animal  association. 
But  the  social  life  of  man  has  developed  many  complex 
phases  not  shown  by  animal  social  life,  such  as  industry, 
art,  government,  science,  education,  morality,  and  religion. 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  13 

Collectively  these  are  known  as  "culture"  (which  is  the 
scientific  term  for  civilization  in  the  broadest  sense);  and 
the  development  of  culture  is  what  distinguishes  the  social 
life  of  man  from  the  social  life  of  brutes.  On  account  of  the 
importance  of  these  various  phases  of  culture  in  human 
social  life  many  thinkers  have  made  the  mistake  of  at- 
tempting to  explain  social  organization  and  evolution 
through  these.  It  has  been  especially  popular  of  late  to 
attempt  to  interpret  the  social  life  of  man  through  his 
industrial  life.  But  industry,  art,  government,  morality, 
religion,  and  all  other  phases  of  civilization  are  products  of 
the  social  life  of  man.  Beneath  them  lies  the  biological 
and  psychological  fact  of  association.  This  is  equivalent  to 
saying  that  industry,  government,  morality,  religion,  and 
the  like,  in  order  to  be  understood,  must  be  viewed  from 
the  social  standpoint  and  interpreted  as  products  of  man's 
social  life  rather  than  vice  versa. 

It  should  be  added  that  the  individual  and  society  are 
correlatives.  We  have  no  knowledge  of  individuals  apart 
from  society  or  society  apart  from  individuals.  What  we 
do  know  is  that  human  life  everywhere  is  a  collective  or 
associated  life,  the  individual  being  on  the  one  hand  largely 
an  expression  of  the  social  life  surrounding  him  and  on  the 
other  hand  society  being  largely  an  expression  of  individual 
character.  The  reasons  for  all  these  assertions  will  appear 
as  we  develop  our  subject. 

What  is  Sociology?  —  The  science  which  deals  with 
human  association,  its  origin,  development,  forms,  and 
functions,  is  sociology.  Briefly,  sociology  is  a  science  which 
deals  with  society  as  a  whole  and  not  with  its  separate 
aspects  or  phases.  It  attempts  to  formulate  the  laws  or 


14  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

principles  which  govern  social  organization  and  social 
evolution.  This  means  that  the  main  problems  of  sociology 
are  those  of  the  organization  of  society  on  the  one  hand  and 
the  evolution  of  society  on  the  other.  These  words,  or- 
ganization and  evolution,  however,  are  used  in  a  broader 
sense  in  sociology  than  they  are  generally  used.  By  organi- 
zation we  mean  any  relation  of  the  parts  of  society  to  each 
other.  By  evolution  we  mean,  not  necessarily  change  for 
the  better,  but  orderly  change  of  any  sort.  Sociology  is, 
therefore,  a  science  which  deals  with  the  laws  or  principles 
of  social  organization  and  of  social  change.  Put  in  more 
exact  terms,  this  makes  sociology  the  science  of  the  origin, 
development,  structure,  and  functioning  of  social  groups. 

Certain  faulty  conceptions  of  sociology  have  greatly 
impeded  its  progress  as  a  science.  We  must  not  conceive 
of  sociology,  for  example,  as  an  encyclopedic  science  of  all 
social  phenomena;  for  there  are  manifestly  other  sciences 
of  social  phenomena,  such  as  economics  and  politics. 
Again,  it  is  wrong  to  conceive  of  sociology  as  the  science 
of  human  institutions;  for  there  are  other  sciences  dealing 
with  human  institutions  and,  besides,  the  non-institutional 
activities  of  our  social  life  are  scarcely  less  important 
sociologically  than  the  institutional.  Finally,  it  is  extremely 
inadequate  to  conceive  of  sociology  as  a  study  of  social 
evils  and  their  remedies.  The  development  of  sociology 
is  indispensable  for  the  correction  of  social  evils,  for  the 
elimination  of  social  maladjustments;  but  it  must  study 
primarily  the  laws  of  normal  social  organization  and  evo- 
lution rather  than  the  abnormal  elements  in  our  social 
life;  for  the  abnormal  is  an  incident,  a  faulty  development, 
within  the  normal.  By  understanding  the  laws  of  social 


THE   STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  15 

normality,  however,  we  may  be  able  to  correct  the  ab- 
normal. 

The  distinction  between  the  sciences,  however,  is  one  of 
problems.  Thus  by  understanding  what  the  problems  of 
sociology  are,  we  shall  be  able  to  understand  its  relations 
to  other  sciences. 

The  Problems  of  Sociology.  —  The  problems  of  sociology 
i  fall  into  two  great  classes:  first,  problems  of  the  organiza- 
tion of  society;  second,  problems  of  the  evolution  of  society. 
The  problems  of  the  organization  of  society  are  problems 
of  the  relations  of  individuals  to  one  another  and  to  in- 
stitutions. They  include  not  only  problems  of  group  struc- 
ture, but  also  problems  of  group  functioning.  Such  are, 
for  example,  problems  of  group  unity,  and  so  of  national 
unity;  or  again,  of  the  influence  of  various  factors  in  phys- 
ical nature  or  in  the  human  mind  upon  social  organization. 
These  problems  may  be  considered  as  problems  of  society 
in  a  hypothetically  stationary  condition,  or  at  rest.  For 
this  reason  Auguste  Comte,  the  founder  of  modern  sociology, 
called  the  division  of  sociology  which  deals  with  such  prob- 
lems Social  Statics. 

But  the  problems  which  are  of  the  most  interest  and 
importance  in  sociology  are  those  of  social  evolution.  Under 
this  head  come  all  problems  of  social  origins  and  of  social 
change.  Especially  important  practically  among  these  are 
the  problems  of  social  progress  and  of  social  retrogression; 
that  is,  the  causes  of  the  advance  of  communities,  nations, 
and  civilizations  to  higher  types  of  social  life,  and  the 
causes  of  social  decline.  The  former  problem,  social 
progress,  is  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  central  problem  of  soci- 
ology. The  effort  of  theoretical  sociology  is  to  develop  a 


1 6  THE  STUDY   OF  SOCIETY 

scientific  theory  of  social  progress.  The  study  of  social 
evolution,  then,  that  is,  of  social  changes  of  all  sorts,  as  we 
have  emphasized  above,  is  the  vital  part  of  sociology ;  and 
it  is  manifest  that  only  a  general  science  of  society  like 
sociology  is  competent  to  deal  with  such  a  problem.  Inas- 
much as  the  problems  of  social  evolution  are  problems  of 
change,  development,  or  movement  in  society,  Comte  pro- 
posed that  this  division  of  sociology  be  called  Social  Dy- 
namics. 

The  Relations  of  Sociology  to  Other  Sciences.1  —  (A) 
Relations  to  Biology  and  Psychology.     In  attempting  to  give 
a  scientific  view  of  social  organization  and  social  evolution, 
sociology  has  to  depend  upon  the  other  natural  sciences, 
particularly  upon  biology  and  psychology.     It  is  manifest 
that  sociology  must  depend  upon  biology,  since  biology  is 
the  general  science  of  life,  and  human  society  is  but  part  of 
the  world  of  life  in  general.     It  is  manifest  also  that  sociol- 
ogy must  depend  upon  psychology  to  explain  the  interac- 
tions between  individuals,  because  these  interactions  are  for 
the  most  part  interactions  between  their  minds.     Thus 
on  the  one  hand  all  social  phenomena  are  vital  phenomena 
and  on  the  other  hand  nearly  all  social  phenomena  are 
on  the  mental  plane.    Every  social  problem  has,  in  other  ( 
words,  its  psychological  and  its  biological  sides,  and  sociol- 
ogy is  distinguished  from  biology  and  psychology  only  as 
a  matter  of  convenience.    The  scientific  division  of  labor 
necessitates  that  certain  scientific  workers  concern  them- 
selves with  certain  problems.     Now,  the  problems  with 

1  For  a  fuller  discussion  of  the  relations  of  sociology  to  other  sciences,  see 
my  advanced  texts,  Sociology  in  its  Psychological  Aspects  and  Introduction 
to  Social  Psychology  (published  by  D.  Appleton  &  Co.). 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  1 7 

which  the  biologist  and  the  psychologist  deal  are  not  the 
problems  of  the  organization  and  evolution  of  society. 
Hence,  while  the  sociologist  borrows  his  principles  of  inter- 
pretation from  biology  and  psychology,  he  has  his  own 
distinctive  problems,  and  it  is  this  fact  which  makes  sociol- 
ogy a  distinct  science. 

Sociology  is  not  so  easily  distinguished  from  the  special 
social  sciences,  such  as  politics  and  economics,  as  it  is 
from  the  other  general  sciences.  These  sciences  occupy 
the  same  field  as  sociology,  that  is,  they  have  to  do  with 
social  phenomena.  But  in  general,  as  has  already  been 
pointed  out,  they  are  concerned  chiefly  with  certain  very 
special  aspects  or  phases  of  the  social  life  and  not  with  its 
most  general  problems.  If  sociology,  then,  is  dependent 
upon  the  other  general  sciences,  particularly  upon  biology 
and  psychology,  it  is  obvious  that  its  relation  to  the  special 
sciences  is  the  reverse ;  namely,  these  sciences  are  dependent 
upon  sociology.  This  is  only  saying  practically  the  same 
thing  as  was  said  above  when  we  pointed  out  that  industry, 
government,  and  religion  are  but  expressions  of  human 
social  life.  In  other  words,  sociology  deals  with  the  more 
general  biological  and  psychological  aspects  of  human 
association,  while  the  special  sciences  of  economics,  politics, 
and  the  like,  generally  deal  with  certain  products  or 'highly 
specialized  phases  of  society. 

(B)  Relations  to  History.1  A  word  may  be  said  about 
the  relation  of  sociology  to  another  science  which  also  deals 
with  human  society  in  a  general  way,  and  that  is  history. 

1  For  a  discussion  of  the  practical  relations  between  the  teaching  of 
history  and  of  sociology,  see  my  paper  on  "  How  History  can  be  taught 
from  a  Sociological  Point  of  View,"  in  Education,  January,  1910. 


1 8  THE   STUDY  OF   SOCIETY 

History  is  a  concrete,  descriptive  science  of  society  which 
attempts  to  construct  a  picture  of  the  social  past.  Sociol- 
ogy, however,  is  an  abstract,  theoretical  science  of  society 
concerned  with  the  laws  and  principles  which  govern  social 
organization  and  social  change.  In  one  sense,  sociology  is 
narrower  than  history  inasmuch  as  it  is  an  abstract  science, 
and  in  another  sense  it  is  wider  than  history  because  it 
concerns  itself  not  only  with  the  social  past  but  also  with 
the  social  present.  The  facts  of  contemporary  social  life 
are  indeed  even  more  important  to  the  sociologist  than  the 
facts  of  history,  although  it  is  impossible  to  construct  a 
theory  of  social  evolution  without  taking  into  full  account 
all  the  facts  available  in  human  history,  and  for  this 
reason  we  must  consider  history  one  of  the  very  important 
methods  of  sociology.  Upon  its  evolutionary  or  dynamic 
side  sociology  may  be  considered  a  sort  of  philosophy 
of  history ;  at  least  it  attempts  to  give  a  scientific  theory 
which  will  explain  the  social  changes  which  history  describes 
concretely. 

(C)  Relations  to  Economics.  Economics  is  that  special 
social  science  which  deals  with  the  wealth-getting  and 
wealth-using  activities  of  man.  In  other  words,  it  is  con- 
cerned with  the  commercial  and  industrial  activities  of 
men.  As  has  already  been  implied,  economics  must  be 
considered  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  special  social 
sciences,  if  not  the  most  important.  Yet  it  is  evident  that 
the  wealth-getting  and  wealth-using  activities  of  man  are 
strictly  an  outgrowth  of  his  social  life,  and  that  economics 
as  a  science  of  human  industry  must  rest  upon  sociology. 
Sometimes  in  the  past  the  mistake  has  been  made  of  sup- 
posing that  economics  dealt  with  the  most  fundamental 


THE   STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  19 

social  phenomena,  and  even  at  times  economists  have  spoken 
of  their  science  as  alone  sufficient  to  explain  all  social  phe- 
nomena. It  cannot  be  admitted,  however,  that  we  can 
explain  social  organization  in  general  or  social  progress  in 
terms  of  economic  development.  A  theory  of  progress,  for 
example,  in  which  the  sole  causes  of  human  progress  were 
found  in  economic  conditions  would  neglect  political,  reli- 
gious, educational,  and  many  other  conditions.  Only  a  very 
one-sided  theory  of  society  can  be  built  upon  such  a  basis. 
Economics  should  keep  to  its  own  sphere  of  explaining  the 
commercial  and  industrial  activities  of  man  and  not  attempt 
to  become  a  general  science  dealing  with  social  evolution.- 
This  is  now  recognized  by  practically  all  economists  of 
standing,  and  the  only  question  which  remains  is  whether: 
economics  is  independent  of  sociology  or  whether  it  rests 
upon  sociology. 

The  view  of  the  most  advanced  economic  thinkers  of  the 
present  day  is  that  economics  should  rest  upon  sociology. 
That  economics  does  rest  upon  sociology  is  shown  by  many; 
considerations.    The  chief  problem  of  theoretical  economics 
is  the  problem  of  economic  value.     But  economic  value 
is  but  one  sort  of  value  which  is  recognized  in  society, 
moral  and  aesthetic  values  being  other  examples  of  the; 
valuing  process,   and   socially  prevalent   values    express* 
the   collective    judgment  of   some  human   group.     The 
problem   of    economic    value,    in   other   words,    reduces 
itself  to  a  problem  in  social  psychology,  and  when  this, 
is  said  it  is  equivalent  to  making  economics  dependent 
upon  sociology,  for  social  psychology  is  simply  the  psycho- 
logical aspect  of  sociology.    Again,  industrial  organization 
and  industrial  evolution  are  but  parts  or  phases  of  social 


20  THE   STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

evolution  in  general,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  industry,  both 
in  its  organization  and  in  its  evolution,  cannot  be  understood 
apart  from  the  general  conditions,  psychological  and 
biological,  which  surround  society.  Again,  many  non- 
economic  forces  continually  obtrude  themselves  upon  the 
student  of  industrial  conditions,  such  as  custom,  invention, 
imitation,  standards,  ideals,  and  the  like.  These  are  general 
social  forces  which  play  throughout  all  phases  of  human 
social  life  and  so  show  the  dependence  of  industry  upon 
society  in  general,  and,  therefore,  the  dependence  of 
economics  upon  sociology.  Much  more  might  be  said  in 
the  way  of  concretely  illustrating  these  statements,  but 
the  purpose  of  this  text  precludes  anything  but  the 
briefest  and  most  elementary  statement  of  these  theoret- 
ical facts. 

(D)  Relations  to  Politics.  We  have  already  said  that 
the  state  is  one  of  the  chief  forms  of  human  association. 
The  science  which  treats  of  the  state  or  of  government  is 
known  as  political  science  or  politics.  It  is  one  of  the 
oldest  of  the  social  sciences,  having  been  more  or  less  sys- 
tematized by  Aristotle.  The  problems  of  politics  are  those 
of  the  origin,  nature,  function,  and  development  of  govern- 
ment. It  is  manifest  that  politics,  on  both  its  practical  and 
its  theoretical  side,  has  many  close  relations  to  sociology. 
While  the  state  or  nation  must  not  be  confused  with  society 
in  general,  yet  because  the  state  is  the  most  imposing,  if 
not  the  most  important,  form  of  human  association,  the 
relations  of  politics  and  sociology  must  be  very  intimate. 
On  the  one  hand,  political  scientists  can  scarcely  under- 
stand the  origin,  nature,  and  proper  functions  of  govern- 
ment without  understanding  more  or  less  about  the  social 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  21 

life  generally ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  sociologist  finds 
that  one  of  the  most  important  facts  of  human  society  is 
that  of  social  control,  or  of  authority.  While  political 
science  deals  only  with  the  organized  authority  mani- 
fested in  the  state,  which  we  call  government,  yet  inas- 
much as  this  is  the  most  important  form  of  social  control, 
and  inasmuch  as  political  organization  is  one  of  the  chief 
manifestations  of  social  organization,  the  sociologist  can 
scarcely  deal  adequately  with  the  great  problems  of  social 
organization  and  evolution  without  constant  reference  to 
political  science. 

An  important  branch  of  political  science  is  jurispru- 
dence, or  the  science  of  law.  This,  again,  is  closely 
related  with  sociology,  on  both  its  theoretical  and  its 
practical  side.  Law  is,  perhaps,  the  most  important  means 
of  social  control  made  use  of  by  society,  and  the  sociol- 
ogist needs  to  understand  something  of  the  principles 
of  law  in  order  to  understand  the  nature  of  the  existing 
social  order.  On  the  other  hand,  the  jurist  needs  to  know 
the  principles  of  social  organization  and  evolution  in 
general  before  he  can  understand  the  nature  and  purpose 
of  law. 

(E)  Relations  to  Ethics.1  Ethics  is  the  science  which 
deals  with  the  right  or  wrong  of  human  conduct.  Its 
problems  are  the  nature  of  morality  and  of  moral  obligation, 
the  validity  of  moral  ideals,  the  norms  by  which  conduct  is 
to  be  judged,  and  the  like.  While  ethics  was  once  consid- 
ered to  be  a  science  of  individual  conduct  it  is  now  generally 

1  For  a  full  statement  of  my  views  regarding  the  relations  of  sociology 
and  ethics,  see  my  article  on  "The  Sociological  Basis  of  Ethics,"  in  the 
International  Journal  of  Ethics,  April,  1910. 


22  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

conceived  as  being  essentially  a  social  science.  The 
moral  and  the  social  are  indeed  not  clearly  separable,  but 
we  may  consider  the  moral  to  be  the  ideal  aspect  of  the 
social. 

This  view  of  morality,  which,  for  the  most  part,  is  in- 
dorsed by  modern  thought,  makes  ethics  dependent  upon 
sociology  for  its  criteria  of  Tightness  or  wrongness.  Indeed, 
we  cannot  argue  any  moral  question  nowadays  unless  we 
argue  it  in  social  terms.  If  we  discuss  the  Tightness  or 
wrongness  of  the  drink  habit,  we  try  to  show  its  social  con- 
sequences. So,  too,  if  we  discuss  the  Tightness  or  wrong- 
ness  of  such  an  institution  as  polygamy,  we  find  our- 
selves forced  to  'do  so  mainly  in  social  terms.  This  is  not 
denying,  of  course,  that  there  are  religious  and  metaphysical 
aspects  to  morality,  —  these  are  not  necessarily  in  conflict 
with  the  social  aspects,  —  but  it  is  saying  that  modern 
ethical  theory  is  coming  more  and  more  to  base  itself  upon 
.the  study  of  the  remote  social  consequences  of  conduct, 
and  that  we  cannot  judge  what  is  right  or  wrong  in  our 
complex  society  unless  we  know  something  of  the  social 
consequences. 

Ethics  must  be  regarded,  therefore,  as  a  normative  science 
to  which  sociology  and  the  other  social  sciences  lead  up. 
It  is,  indeed,  very  difficult  to  separate  ethics  from  sociology. 
It  is  the  business  of  sociology  to  furnish  norms  and  standards 
to  ethics,  and  it  is  the  business  of  ethics  as  a  science  to  take 
the  norms  and  standards  furnished  by  the  social  sciences, 
to  develop  them,  and  to  criticize  them.  This  text,  there- 
fore, will  not  attempt  to  exclude  ethical  implications  and 
judgments  from  sociological  discussions,  because  that  would 
be  futile  and  childish. 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  23 

(F)  Relations  to  Education.    Among  the  applied  sciences, 
sociology   is  especially  closely   related   to  education,   for 
education  is  not  simply  the  art  of  developing  the  powers 
and  capacities  of  the  individual;    it  is  rather  the  fitting 
of  individuals  for  efficient  membership,  for  proper  function- 
ing, in  social  life.     On  its  individual  side,  education  should 
initiate  the  individual  into  the  social  life  and  fit  him  for 
social  service.     It  should  create  the  good  citizen.    On  the 
social  or  public  side,  education  should  be  the  chief  means 
of  social  progress.     It  should  regenerate  society,  by  fitting 
the  individual  for  a  higher  type  of  social  life  than  at  present 
achieved.     We  must  have  a  socialized  education  if  our 
present  complex  civilization  is  to  endure.     Social  problems 
touch  education  on  every  side,  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
education  must  bear  upon  every  social  problem.     It  is 
evident,  therefore,  that  sociology  has  a  very  great  bearing 
upon  the  problems  of  education ;  and  the  teacher  who  comes 
to  his  task  equipped  with  a  knowledge  of  social  conditions 
and  of  the  laws  and  principles  of  social  organization  and 
evolution  will  find  a  significance  and  meaning  in  his  work 
which  he  could  hardly  otherwise  find. 

(G)  Relations  to  "  Home  Economics."    "  Home  econom- 
ics," or  domestic  science,  is  another  good  example  of  an 
applied  social  science  which  rests  upon  sociology.     So  far 
as  it  deals  merely  with  the  physical  problems  of  the  house- 
hold  group,   such   as    nutrition   and   sanitation,   it   rests 
upon  chemistry,  physiology,  bacteriology,  and  other  physical 
sciences.     But  so  far  as  it  deals  with  the  higher  life  of  the 
family,  with  the  "  home  "  in  the  true  sense,  it  must  rest 
upon  sociology.     Sociology  comes  in,  then,  to  give  a  point 
of  view  and  of  approach ;  for  the  practical  problems  of  the 


24  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

family  life  cannot  be  properly  viewed  unless  the  function 
of  the  family  in  human  society  is  understood,  and  even 
something  is  known  of  the  origin  and  evolution  of  the 
family  as  a  form  of  association. 

(H)  Relations  to  Social  and  Philanthropic  Work.1  If 
social  and  philanthropic  work  is  to  be  scientific,  it  must 
rest  chiefly  upon  sociology.  The  elimination  of  hereditary 
defectiveness,  the  overcoming  of  the  social  maladjust- 
ments of  individuals,  and  the  correction  of  faulty  social 
and  industrial  conditions  —  the  three  great  tasks  of  sci- 
entific social  work  —  all  require  great  knowledge  of  human 
society.  While  economics  and  political  science  furnish  in- 
dispensable facts  for  the  social  worker,  the  general  laws  of 
normal  social  life,  or  human  living  together,  must  be  sought 
in  sociology.  Sociology  stands  hi  much  the  same  rela- 
tion, therefore,  to  scientific  social  work  as  biology  does  to 
medicine,  and  hence  the  social  worker  requires  thorough 
equipment  in  sociology  that  he  may  approach  his  tasks 
aright. 

Whether  social  work  aims  to  be  remedial,  that  is,  to 
restore  to  normal  social  life  dependents,  defectives,  and 
delinquents;  or  preventive,  that  is,  to  remove  the  causes  of 
social  misery;  or  constructive,  that  is,  to  develop  a  higher 
degree  of  social  welfare  for  all,  it  must  take  into  account 
at  every  step  the  laws  which  govern  human  relations,  the 
principles  of  social  normality,  the  causes  of  social  maladjust- 
ment, and  the  agencies  of  social  progress;  and  these  must 
be  sought  fundamentally  in  sociology. 

1  Additional  reading  on  this  topic  may  be  found  in  the  author's  articles  on 
"Philanthropy  and  Sociology"  in  The  Survey,  June  4,  1910,  and  on  "Social 
Facts  and  Scientific  Social  Work"  in  The  Survey,  June  8,  1918. 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  2  5 

The  Relations  of  Sociology  to  Social  Reconstruction.1— 

The  last  sentence  indicates  briefly  the  bearing  of  sociology 
upon  problems  of  social  reconstruction.  The  Great  War 
has  left  our  civilization  torn  and  divided.  At  the  same 
time  it  has  revealed  fatal  weaknesses  in  our  institutions. 
Social  readjustments  along  many  lines  have  become  neces- 
sary. Hence  many  programs  of  reconstruction  have  been 
presented.  To  judge  between  these  the  citizen  needs  to 
know  the  fundamental  principles  of  social  organization 
and  of  social  progress  —  the  laws  of  social  survival,  of 
social  efficiency,  and  social  harmony.  We  no  longer  build 
bridges  without  consulting  bridge  engineers;  neither  should 
we  attempt  to  build  institutions  without  the  fullest  use  of 
expert  knowledge.  To  judge  the  many  social  programs 
of  the  present,  then,  the  citizen  needs  a  knowledge  of 
sociology. 

Among  the  many  party  programs  put  forward  as  a  basis 
for  social  reconstruction  at  the  present  time,  for  example, 
is  socialism;  and  of  socialism  there  are  many  varieties, 
from  the  extreme  revolutionary  class  socialism,  which  is 
now  popularly  known  as  Bolshevism  from  the  party  name  of 
its  Russian  advocates,  to  the  relatively  conservative  type  of 
socialism  exemplified  in  the  platform  of  the  British  Labor 
Party.  Now,  while  sociology  has  no  logical  connection  with 
socialism  or  any  other  party  program,  it  is  evident  that  the 
various  forms  of  socialism  cannot  be  properly  understood 
or  intelligently  criticized  without  knowledge  of  sociology. 
This  is  true  of  all  party  programs,  but  it  is  especially  true 

1  Additional  reading  on  this  topic  (which  may  be  best  taken  up,  however, 
after  Chapter  VIII)  may  be  found  in  the  author's  book  on  The  Social 
Problem  (published  by  The  Macmillan  Company). 


26  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

of  socialism,  for  in  many  of  its  forms  it  rests  upon  a  par- 
ticular social  philosophy  or  theory  of  social  evolution, 
namely,  the  theory  that  all  social  evolution  is  determined 
by  economic  conditions.  Just  how  we  shall  regard  the 
philosophy  of  revolutionary  socialism  in  the  light  of  scientific 
sociology,  we  shall  see  in  a  later  chapter;  in  this  introduc- 
tory chapter  we  are  concerned  only  to  notice  that  the 
socialist  program  and  all  other  social  reconstruction  pro- 
grams of  the  present  need  to  be  tested  by  sociological 
knowledge. 

It  is  not  simply  proposals  and  programs  which  need  to 
be  tested  by  the  citizen;  many  new  social  experiments 
which  are  now  being  tried  throughout  our  civilization 
manifestly  depend  for  their  success  upon  a  general  diffusion 
of  social  intelligence.  Democracy  itself,  indeed,  is  such 
an  experiment.  Democracy  means  a  social  life  in  which 
the  opinion  and  will  of  every  normal  adult  counts  in  the 
determination  of  social  policies.  Obviously  the  success 
of  democracy  depends  upon  the  possibility  of  vast  masses 
of  men  forming  rational  opinions  and  executing  rational 
decisions  as  a  group.  That  is  possible  only  through  social 
and  political  education.  We  must  educate  for  democracy 
if  we  wish  it  to  succeed;  and  that  means  that  we  must 
diffuse  knowledge  not  merely  of  the  machinery  of  demo- 
cratic government,  but  of  social  conditions  which  must 
be  dealt  with  by  such  government  and  of  the  duties  of 
citizens  in  regard  to  such  conditions. 

It  is  obvious  that  sociology,  if  it  is  to  be  impartial,  must 
not  be  developed  in  the  interest  of  any  class,  party,  or 
particular  reform.  Rather  it  must  aim  at  the  discovery 
of  the  full  truth  regarding  human  relations.  But  this  truth 


THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY  27 

when  discovered  will  be  the  means  of  deciding  the  wisdom 
or  unwisdom  of  any  proposed  reform  or  program  of  social 
reconstruction.  Thus  scientific  truth  is  practical  in  the 
deepest  sense.  Only  unbiased  knowledge  can  lead  us 
aright;  and  hence  to  learn  to  lay  aside  class,  party,  or 
personal  bias  and  to  see  social  facts  as  they  are  is  the  only 
method  by  which  we  can  hope  to  build  a  better  human 
world. 

The  physical  sciences  have  enabled  man  to  attain  to  a 
considerable  mastery  over  physical  nature,  and  thus  have 
greatly  benefited  humanity.  The  development  of  the 
social  sciences,  we  have  every  reason  to  believe,  will  enable 
man  to  control  his  own  nature  and  his  social  life;  and  this, 
as  the  Great  War  has  shown  us,  is  even  more  important 
for  his  happiness  and  welfare.  The  ultimate  aim  of  soci- 
ology, then,  as  of  all  other  science,  is  mastery  over  life  and 
its  conditions;  and  hence  its  practical  aim  is  nothing  less 
than  to  replace  the  policy  of  drift  which  our  civilization 
has  thus  far  largely  followed  in  social  matters  by  a  policy 
of  conscious,  scientific  mastery  over  the  conditions  of  our 
social  existence.  It  is  only  upon  such  a  scientific  basis 
that  social  reconstruction  can  be  successful. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

HAYES,  Introduction  to  Study  of  Sociology,  Chaps.  I-II 
ELLWOOD,  Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  Chap.  I. 
Ross,  The  Foundations  of  Sociology,  Chaps.  I-II. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

BLACKMAR  and  GILLIN,  Outlines  of  Sociology,  Bk.  I,  Chaps.  I-III. 

BOGAEDUS,  Introduction  to  Sociology,  Chap.  I. 

DEALEY,  Sociology,  Its  Simpler  Teachings  and  Applications,  Chap.  I. 


28  THE  STUDY  OF  SOCIETY 

ELLWOOD,  Sociology  in  its  Psychological  Aspects,  Chaps.  I-V. 
GIDDINGS,  Elements  of  Sociology,  Chap.  I. 
GIDDINGS,  Principles  of  Sociology,  Chaps.  I-TV. 
GILLETTE,  Sociology,  Chap.  I. 
SMALL,  General  Sociology,  Chaps.  I-III. 
SPENCER,  The  Study  of  Sociology. 
WARD,  Outlines  of  Sociology,  Chaps.  I-VL 
American  Journal  of  Sociology. 


CHAPTER   II 

THE  BEARING   OF  THE  THEORY   OF  EVOLUTION  UPON 
SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

SINCE  Darwin  wrote  his  Origin  of  Species  all  the  sciences 
in  any  way  connected  with  biology  have  been  profoundly 
influenced  by  his  theory  of  evolution.  It  is  important 
that  the  student  of  sociology,  therefore,  should  under- 
stand at  the  outset  something  of  the  bearing  of  the  theory 
of  evolution  upon  the  social  problems. 

We  may  note  at  the  beginning,  however,  that  the  word 
evolution  refers  to  two  distinct,  though  related,  theories. 
The  first  is  Darwin's  doctrine  of  descent;  the  second  is 
Spencer's  theory  of  universal  evolution.  Let  us  note 
somewhat  in  detail  what  the  theory  of  evolution  means  in 
the  first  of  these  senses. 

The  Darwinian  Theory  of  Descent.  —  Darwin's  theory 
of  descent  is  the  doctrine  that  all  forms  of  life  now  existing 
or  that  have  existed  upon  the  earth  have  sprung  from  a 
few  simple  primitive  types.  According  to  this  theory  all 
forms  of  animals  and  plants  have  sprung  from  a  few  primi- 
tive stocks,  though  not  necessarily  one,  because  even  in  the 
beginning  there  may  have  existed  a  divergence  between 
the  primitive  forms  of  life.  So  far  as  the  animal  world 
is  concerned,  then,  this  theory  of  evolution  amounts 
to  the  assertion  of  the  kinship  of  all  life.  From  one  or 
more  simple  primitive  unicellular  forms  have  arisen  the 
great  multitude  of  multicellular  forms  that  now  exist. 

29 


30      THEORY   OF   EVOLUTION   UPON   SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

Popularly,  Darwin's  theory  is  supposed  to  be  that  man 
sprang  from  the  apes,  but  this,  strictly  speaking,  is  a  mis- 
conception. Darwin's  theory  necessitates  the  belief,  not 
that  man  sprang  from  any  existing  species  of  ape,  but 
rather  that  the  apes  and  man  have  sprung  from  some 
common  stock.  It  is  equally  true,  however,  that  man 
and  many  other  of  the  lower  animals,  according  to  this 
theory,  have  come  from  a  common  stock.  As  was  said 
above,  the  theory  is  not  a  theory  of  the  descent  of  man 
from  any  particular  animal  type,  but  rather  the  the- 
ory of  the  kinship,  the  genetic  relationship,  of  all  animal 
species. 

It  is  evident  that  if  we  assume  Darwin's  theory  of 
descent  in  sociology  we  must  look  for  the  beginnings  of 
many  peculiarly  human  things  in  the  animal  world  below 
man.  Human  institutions,  according  to  this  theory,  could 
not  be  supposed  to  have  an  independent  origin,  or  human 
society  in  any  of  its  forms  to  be  a  fact  by  itself,  but  rather 
all  human  things  are  connected  with  the  whole  world  of 
animal  life  below  man.  Thus  if  we  are,  according  to  this 
theory,  to  look  for  the  origin  of  the  family,  we  should  have 
to  turn  first  of  all  to  the  habits  of  animals  nearest  man. 
This  is  only  one  of  the  many  bearings  which  Darwin's 
theory  has  upon  the  study  of  social  problems;  but  it  is 
evident  even  from  this  that  it  revolutionizes  sociology. 
So  long  as  it  was  possible  to  look  upon  human  society  as  a 
distinct  creation,  as  something  isolated,  by  itself  in  nature, 
it  was  possible  to  hold  to  intellectualistic  views  of  the  origin 
of  human  institutions. 

But  some  one  may  ask :  Why  should  the  sociologist  accept 
Darwin's  theory?  What  proofs  does  it  rest  upon?  What 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS       31 

warrant  has  a  student  of  sociology  for  accepting  a  doc- 
trine of  such  far-reaching  consequences?  The  reply 
is,  that  biologists,  generally,  during  the  last  fifty  years, 
after  a  careful  study  of  Darwin's  arguments  and  after 
a  careful  examination  of  all  other  evidence,  have  come 
substantially  to  agree  with  him.  There  is  no  great  biol- 
ogist now  living  who  does  not  accept  the  essentials  of 
the  doctrine  of  descent.  Five  lines  of  proof  may  be 
offered  in  support  of  this  doctrine,  and  it  may  now  be  well 
for  us,  as  students  of  sociology,  briefly  to  review  these. 

(1)  The  homologies  or  similarities  of  structure  of  differ- 
ent animals.     There  are  very  striking  similarities  of  struc- 
ture between  all  the  higher  animals.     Between  the  ape  and 
man,  for  example,  there  are  over  one  hundred  and  fifty  such 
anatomical  homologies;  that  is,  in  the  ape  we  find  bone 
for  bone,   and  muscle  for  muscle,  corresponding  to  the 
structure  of  the  human  body.     Even  an  animal  so  remotely 
related  to  man  as  the  cat  has  many  more  resemblances  to 
man  in  anatomical  structure  than  dissimilarities.     Now, 
the  meaning  of   these  anatomical  homologies,   biologists 
say,  is  that  these  animals  are  genetically  related,  that  is, 
they  had  a  common  ancestry  at   some  remote  period  in 
the  past. 

(2)  The  presence  of  vestigial  organs  in  the  higher  animals 
supplies   another   argument    for    the   belief    in   common 
descent.     In  man,  for  example,  there  exist  over  one  hundred 
of  these  vestigial  or  rudimentary  organs,  as  the  vermiform 
appendix,  the  pineal  gland,  and  the  like.     Many  of  these 
vestigial  organs,  which  are  now  functionless  in  man,  per- 
form functions  in  lower  animals,  and  this  is  held  to  show 


32      THEORY   OF  EVOLUTION   UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

that  at  some  remote  period  in  the  past  they  also  func- 
tioned in  man's  ancestors. 

(3)  The  facts  of  embryology  seem  to  point  to  the  descent 
of  the  higher  types  of  animals  from  the  lower  types.     The 
embryo  or  foetus  in  its  development  seems  to  recapitulate 
the  various  stages  through  which  the  species  has  passed. 
Thus  the  human  embryo  at  one  stage  of  its  development 
resembles  a  fish ;   at  another  stage,  the  embryo  of  a  dog ; 
and  for  a  long  time  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  between 
the  human  embryo  and  that  of  one  of  the  larger  apes. 
These  embryological  facts,  biologists  say,  indicate  genetic 
relation  between  the  various  animal  forms  which  the  embryo 
in  its  different  stages  simulates. 

(4)  In  the  earth's  crust  are  found  the  fossil  remains  of 
extinct  species  of  animals  which  are  evidently  ancestors  of 
existing  species.     Until  the  doctrine  of  descent  was  ac- 
cepted there  was  no  way  of  explaining  the  presence  of 
these  fossil  remains  of  extinct  animals  in  the  earth's  crust. 
It  was  supposed  by  some  that  the  earth  had  passed  thrqugh 
a  series  of  cataclysms  in  which  all  forms  of  life  upon  the 
earth  had  been  many  times  destroyed  and  many  times 
re-created.     It  is  now  demonstrated,  however,  that  these 
fossils  are  related  to  existing  species,  and  sometimes  it  is 
possible  to  trace  back  the  evolution  of  existing  forms  to 
very  primitive  forms  in   this  way.     For  example,   it  is 
possible  to  trace  the  horse,  which  is  now  an  animal  with 
a  single  hoof,  walking  on  a  single  toe,  back  to  an  animal 
that  walked  upon  four  toes  and  had  four  hoofs  and  was 
not  much  larger  than  a  fox.     It  is  not  so  generally  known 
that  it  is  also  possible  to  trace  man  back  through  a  series  of 
fossil  human  remains  that  have  been  discovered  in  the 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS      33 

earth's  crust  to  the  time  when  he  is  apparently  just  emerg- 
ing from  some  apelike  form.  The  fossil  man  of  Java, 
Pithecanthropus  erectus,  discovered  by  Dr.  Eugene  Dubois 
in  1892,  was  a  creature  of  less  than  two  thirds  the  brain 
capacity  of  modern  man  and  with  many  apelike  character- 
istics. •  Thus  we  cannot  except  even  man  from  the  theory  of 
evolution  and  suppose  that  he  was  especially  created,  as 
Alfred  Russel  Wallace,  Darwin's  contemporary  and  co- 
laborer,  and  others,  have  supposed. 

(5)  The  last  line  of  argument  in  favor  of  the  belief  that 
all  existing  species  have  descended  from  a  few  simple 
primitive  forms  is  found  in  the  fact  of  the  variation  of 
animals  through  artificial  selection  under  domestication. 
For  generations  breeders  have  known  that  by  carefully 
selecting  the  type  of  animal  or  plant  .which  they  have 
desired,  it  is  possible  to  produce  approximately  that  type. 
Thus  have  originated  all  the  breeds  or  varieties  of  domestic 
plants  and  animals.  Now,  Darwin  conceived  that  nature 
also  exercises  a  selection  by  weeding  out  those  individuals 
that  are  not  adapted  to  their  environment.  In  other 
words,  nature,  though  unconscious,  selects  in  a  negative 
way  the  stronger  and  the  better  adapted.  Animals  vary 
in  nature  as  well  as  under  domestication  from  causes  not 
yet  well  understood.  The  variations  that  were  favorable 
to  survival,  Darwin  argued,  would  secure  the  survival, 
through  the  passing  on  of  these  variations  by  heredity, 
of  the  better  adapted  types  of  plants  and  animals.  The 
natural  process  of  weeding  out  the  inferior  or  least  adapted 
through  early  death,  or  through  failure  to  reproduce, 
Darwin  called  "natural  selection",  and  likened  it  in  its 
effect  upon  organisms  to  the  artificial  selection  which 


3,4     THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

breeders  consciously  use  to  secure  types  of  plants  or  ani- 
mals that  they  desire. 

A  great  addition  to  Darwin's  theories  has  been  made  by 
the  Dutch  botanist,  Hugo  de  Vries,  who  has  shown  that  the 
variations  which  are  fruitful  for  the  production  of  new 
species  are  probably  great  or  discontinuous  variations, 
which  he  terms  "mutations,"  instead  of  the  small  fluctuat- 
ing variations  which  Darwin  thought  were  probably  most 
important  hi  the  production  of  new  species.  De  Vries's 
theory  in  no  way  affects  the  doctrine  of  descent,  nor  does  it 
take  away  from  the  importance  of  natural  selection  in  fixing 
the  variations.  The  doctrine  of  descent,  therefore,  stands 
in  all  of  its  essentials  to-day  unquestioned  by  men  of  science, 
and  it  must  be  assumed  by  the  student  of  sociology  in  any 
attempt  to  explain  social  evolution. 

Spencer's  Theory  of  Universal  Evolution.  —  A  second 
meaning  given  to  the  word  evolution  is  that  which  Spencer 
popularized  in  his  First  Principles.  This  is  a  philosophical 
theory  of  the  universe  which  asserts  that  not  only  have 
species  of  animals  come  to  be  what  they  are  through  a 
process  of  development,  but  everything  whatsoever  that 
exists,  from  molecules  of  matter  to  stars  and  planets. 
It  is  the  view  that  the  universe  is  in  a  process  of  develop- 
ment. Evolution  in  this  wider  sense  includes  all  existing 
things  whatsoever,  while  evolution  in  the  sense  of  Darwin's 
theory  is  confined  to  the  organic  world.  While  the  theory 
that  all  things  existing  have  through  a  process  of  orderly 
change  come  to  be  what  they  are,  is  a  very  old  one,  yet 
it  was  undoubtedly  Spencer's  writings  which  popularized 
the  theory,  and  to  Spencer  we  also  owe  the  attempt  in  his 
Synthetic  Philosophy  to  trace  the  working  of  evolution  in 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS   35 

all  the  different  realms  of  phenomena.  The  belief  in  uni- 
versal evolution  which  Spencer  popularized  has  also  come 
to  be  generally  accepted  by  scientific  and  philosophical 
thinkers.  While  Spencer's  particular  theories  of  evolution 
may  not  be  accepted,  some  form  of  universal  evolution 
is  very  generally  believed  in.  The  thought  of  evolution 
now  dominates  all  the  sciences, — physical,  biological, 
psychological,  and  sociological.  It  is  evident  that  the 
student  of  society,  if  he  accepts  fully  the  modern  scientific 
spirit,  must  also  assume  evolution  in  this  second  or  uni- 
versal sense. 

The  Different  Phases  of  Universal  Evolution.  —  It  may 
be  well,  in  order  to  correlate  our  knowledge  of  social  evolu- 
tion with  knowledge  in  general,  to  note  the  different  well- 
marked  phases  of  universal  evolution. 

(1)  Cosmic  Evolution.       This  is  the  phase  the  astron- 
omer and  the  geologist  are  particularly  interested  in.     It 
deals  with  the  evolution  of  worlds.     In  this  phase  we  are 
dealing  merely  with  physical  matter,  and  it  is  supposed 
that  the  active  principle  which  works  in  this  phase  of 
evolution  is  the  attraction  of  particles  of  matter  for  one 
another.     This  leads  to  the  condensation  of  matter  into 
suns  and  their  planets,   and  the  geological  evolution  of 
the   earth,    for   example.     Laplace's   nebular    hypothesis 
is  an  attempt  to  give  an  adequate  statement  of  the  cosmic 
phase  of  evolution.     While  this  hypothesis  has  been  much 
criticized  of  late,  in  its  essentials  it  seems  to  stand.     We 
are  not,  however,  as  students  of  society,  concerned  with 
this  phase  of  evolution. 

(2)  Organic  Evolution.     This  is  the  phase  of  evolution 
with  which  Darwin  dealt  and  which  biology,  as  a  science  of 


36     THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

evolution  of  living  forms,  deals  with.  The  great  merit  of 
Darwin's  work  was  that  he  showed  that  the  determining 
factor  in  this  phase  of  evolution  is  natural  selection ;  that  is, 
the  extermination  of  the  unadapted  through  death  or 
through  failure  to  reproduce.  Types  unsuited  to  their 
environment  thus  die  before  reproduction.  The  stronger 
and  better  fitted  survive,  and  thus  the  type  is  raised. 
Natural  selection  may  be  regarded,  then,  as  essentially  the 
determining  force  in  this  phase  of  evolution. 

(3)  The  Evolution  of  Mind.  This  might  be  included 
in  organic  evolution,  but  all  organisms  do  not  apparently 
have  minds.  It  is  evident  that  among  animals  those  that 
would  stand  the  best  chance  of  surviving  would  not  be 
simply  those  that  have  the  strongest  brute  strength,  but 
rather  those  that  have  the  keenest  intelligence  and  that 
could  adapt  themselves  quickly  to  their  environment, 
that  could  see  approaching  danger  and  escape  it.  Natural 
selection  has,  therefore,  favored  in  the  animal  world  the 
survival  of  those  animals  with  the  highest  type  of  intelli- 
gence. It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  natural  selection 
is  the  only  force  which  has  created  the  mind  in  all  its 
various  expressions. 

J  (4)  Social  Evolution.  By  social  evolution  we  mean  the 
evolution  of  groups,  or,  in  strict  accordance  with  our  def- 
inition of  society,  groups  of  mentally  interacting  indi- 
viduals. Groups  are  to  be  found  throughout  the  animal 
world,  and  it  is  in  the  human  species,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  that  the  highest  types  of  association  are  found.  This 
is  not  an  accident.  Association,  or  living  together  in 
groups,  has  been  one  of  the  devices  by  which  animal 
species  have  been  enabled  to  survive.  It  is  evident  that 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS   37 

not  only  would  intelligence  help  an  animal  to  survive  more 
than  brute  strength,  but  that  ability  to  cooperate  with  one's 
fellows  would  also  help  in  the  same  way.  Consequently 
we  find  a  degree  of  combination  or  cooperation  almost  at 
the  very  beginning  of  life,  and  it  is  without  doubt  through 
cooperation  that  man  has  become  the  dominant  and 
supreme  species  upon  the  planet.  Man's  social  instincts, 
in  other  words,  have  been  perhaps  even  more  important 
for  his  survival  than  his  intelligence.  The  man  who  lies, 
cheats,  and  steals,  or  who  indulges  in  other  unsocial  conduct 
sets  himself  against  his  group  and  places  his  group  at 
a  disadvantage  as  compared  with  other  groups.  Now, 
natural  selection  is  continually  operating  upon  groups  as 
well  as  upon  individuals,  and  the  group  which  can  command 
the  most  loyal,  most  efficient  membership,  and  has  the  best 
organization,  is,  other  things  being  equal,  the  group  which 
survives.  Natural  selection  is,  then,  at  work  in  social 
evolution  as  well  as  in  general  organic  evolution.  But 
social  evolution  has  also  a  new  and  distinct  factor  at  work 
which  we  may  call  association,  cooperation,  or  coadapta- 
tion. 

Moreover,  the  social  life  of  man  shows  a  distinct  phase 
of  social  evolution,  the  evolution  of  culture  or  civilization. 
This  is  an  evolution  not  of  hereditary  traits,  but  of  acquired 
habits,  and  is  based  upon  man's  higher  intelligence,  his 
power  of  articulate  speech,  and  his  consequent  greater 
capacity  to  learn.  Thus  while  the  factors  which  are  at 
work  in  the  lower  phases  of  evolution  are  also  at  work  in 
the  higher  phases,  these  latter  show  new  and  distinct  factors. 

Factors  in  Organic  Evolution.  —  Nevertheless,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  factors  which  are  at  work  in  organic  evolution 

45512 


38     THEORY  OF   EVOLUTION   UPON  SOCIAL   PROBLEMS 

generally  are  also  at  work  in  social  evolution.  We  need, 
therefore,  to  note  these  factors  carefully  and  to  see  how  they 
are  at  work  in  human  society  as  well  as  in  the  animal  world 
below  man.  While  these  factors  are  not  all  of  the  factors 
which  are  at  work  in  social  evolution,  still  they  are  the 
primitive  factors,  and  are,  therefore,  of  fundamental  im- 
portance. Let  us  see  what  these  factors  are. 

(i)  The  Multiplication  of  Organisms  in  Some  Geometric 
Ratio  through  Reproduction.  It  is  a  law  of  life  that  every 
species  must  increase  so  that  the  number  of  offspring  exceeds 
the  number  of  parents  if  the  species  is  to  survive.  If  the 
offspring  only  equal  in  number  the  parents,  some  of  them 
will  die  before  maturity  is  reached  or  will  fail  to  reproduce, 
and  so  the  species  will  gradually  become  extinct.  Every  spe- 
cies normally  increases,  therefore,  in  some  geometric  ratio. 
Now,  this  tendency  to  reproduce  in  some  geometric  ratio, 
which  characterizes  all  living  organisms,  means  that  any 
species,  if  left  to  itself,  would  soon  reach  such  numbers  as 
to  occupy  the  whole  earth.  Darwin  showed,  for  example, 
that  though  the  elephant  is  the  slowest  breeding  of  all 
animals,  if  every  elephant  lived  its  normal  length  of  life 
(one  hundred  years)  and  to  every  pair  were  born  six  off  spring, 
then,  at  the  end  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty  years  there 
would  be  nineteen  million  living  elephants  descended  from  a 
single  pair.  This  illustration  shows  the  enormous  possi- 
bilities of  any  species  reproducing  in  geometric  ratio,  as  all 
species  in  order  to  survive  must  do. 

That  this  tendency  to  increase  in  some  geometric  ratio 
applies  also  to  man  is  evident  from  all  of  the  facts  which  we 
know  concerning  human  populations.  It  is  not  infrequent 
for  a  people  to  double  its  numbers  every  twenty-five  years. 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS      39 

If  this  were  continued  for  any  length  of  time  it  is  evident 
that  a  single  nation  could  soon  populate  the  whole  earth. 
Malthus,  an  English  economist  at  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century,  was  the  first  to  study  systematically 
this  multiplication  of  human  populations  in  some  geo- 
metric ratio  and  its  consequences.  He  argued  from  it  that 
there  was  always  a  tendency  for  population  to  outstrip 
food  supply,  and  that  this  was  a  permanent  cause  of  social 
misery.  Consequently  he  held  that  if  better  wages,  and  so 
a  larger  food  supply,  were  given  to  the  lower  economic 
classes  of  society,  they  would  multiply  so  much  more  rap- 
idly that  worse  poverty  would  result  than  before.  While 
we  shall  see  in  a  later  chapter  that  Malthus  carried  his 
theory  too  far,  yet  there  is  no  doubt  that  under  certain 
conditions  in  human  society  there  is  a  tendency  for  popu- 
lation to  press  against  food  supply,  and  that  to  this  multi- 
plication of  numbers  in  human  society  is  due  the  com- 
petition of  our  social  and  economic  life,  as  in  the  world  of 
life  at  large. 

(2)  Heredity.  Heredity  is  the  factor  in  organic  evolu- 
tion which  insures  the  persistence  of  the  species  or  racial 
type.  It  is  that  aspect  of  the  phenomenon  of  reproduction 
which  we  recognize  by  saying,  "Like  begets  like."  Essen- 
tially, heredity  is  the  transmission  of  traits  from  parents  to 
offspring.  Much  has  been  written  upon  heredity  in  the 
past,  but  only  recently  have  the  laws  or  principles  of 
heredity  come  to  be  clearly  understood  by  biologists. 

Heredity  is  not  less  a  fact  of  human  society  than  of  the 
animal  world.  Racial  heredity  especially  is  one  of  the 
most  significant  facts  of  human  society;  while  even  family 
heredity  counts  in  its  influence  far  more  than  some  have 


40      THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

supposed.  Biologists  generally  hold  that  heredity  affects 
in  man  not  only  his  physical  traits,  but  also  his  mental  and 
moral  traits,  so  far  as  these  latter  are  dependent  upon  the 
inborn  structure  of  the  brain  and  nervous  system. 

This  brings  us  to  the  questions,  What  traits  are  trans- 
missible? and,  How  are  they  transmitted?  That  certain 
things  are  given  us  by  nature,  and  that  others  come  to  us 
through  nurture,  or  from  the  influence  of  our  environment, 
has  long  been  known.  Throughout  the  world  of  life  certain 
traits  of  organisms  are  inherent  in  their  nature,  given  in 
the  germ,  as  we  say;  while  other  traits  are  modifications 
acquired  during  the  lifetime  of  the  individual.  Hence  the 
contrast  between  inborn  and  acquired  traits,  a  contrast 
which  is  of  the  utmost  significance;  for  probably  only  inborn 
traits  are  transmitted  by  heredity. 

We  cannot  go  far  into  the  biological  theory  of  heredity 
in  this  book.  Certain  facts  and  general  principles,  how- 
ever, may  be  pointed  out  which  will  save  much  confusion 
in  the  study  of  social  problems.  The  student  of  sociology 
should  especially  bear  in  mind  three  biological  facts:  (i) 
The  germ  cells,  out  of  which  the  new  individual  arises, 
are  a  separate  series  of  cells,  distinct  from  the  body  cells. 
(2)  Although  the  germ  cells  are  separate  from  the  body  cells, 
the  body  nevertheless  affords  the  environment  of  the  germ 
cells,  and  furnishes  them  with  nutrition.  (3)  In  bi-parental 
reproduction,  inheritance  is  equal  from  both  parents. 

From  the  first  fact  follows  directly  Weismann's  law  of 
the  non-transmissibility  of  "acquired  traits."  On  account 
of  the  separateness  of  the  germ  cells  from  the  body  cells, 
there  is  no  way  by  which  specific  bodily  modifications  can 
be  transmitted  to  offspring.  Modifications  produced  in 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS   41 

organs  through  use  or  disuse  are  not,  therefore,  transmis- 
sible. For  example,  the  blacksmith  who  develops  a  strong 
biceps  muscle  in  his  work,  does  not  transmit  this  modifica- 
tion to  his  children. 

It  must  not  be  supposed,  however,  that  the  body  has  no 
influence  upon  the  germ  cells;  for  it  furnishes  their  nutri- 
tion. If  the  body  is  poisoned  by  a  drug  such  as  alcohol, 
or  by  the  toxins  produced  by  certain  diseases,  this  will 
affect  the  germ  cells,  and  the  offspring  may  inherit,  on  this 
account,  a  weakened  vitality  or  a  degenerate  constitution. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  transmission  of  a  specific,  acquired 
trait,  but  is  only  the  effect  of  the  poisoning  or  malnutrition 
of  the  germ  cells  in  the  body  of  the  parent.  It  is  sometimes 
erroneously  supposed  that  Weismann's  theory  comes  to 
this,  that  no  matter  what  the  parent  individual  does,  it 
will  not  affect  his  offspring;  but  from  what  has  been  said 
above,  it  will  be  seen  that  this  supposition  is  a  gross  mis- 
understanding of  the  doctrine  of  the  non-transmissibility 
of  acquired  traits. 

Mendel's  law  of  heredity  follows  directly  from  the  third 
fact  mentioned,  that  inheritance  from  both  parents  is  equal, 
and  from  the  further  fact  that  hereditary  traits  are  seem- 
ingly transmitted  as  units.  It  is  impossible  within  our  space 
to  explain  this  very  important  biological  law.  It  will  suffice 
to  say  that  in  consequence  of  this  law  there  is  apparently  no 
permanent  blending  of  different  traits,  in  a  series  of  genera- 
tions, but  that,  on  the  contrary,  contrasted  traits  tend  to 
segregate  in  definite  and  regular  proportions.  For  example, 
if  albinos  (persons  without  pigment  in  hair,  eyes,  or  skin) 
intermarry  with  normal  persons,  their  children  in  the  first 
generation  will  be  apparently  all  normal  persons.  But  if 


42       THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

these  children  of  albinos  and  normal  persons  intermarry 
among  themselves,  their  offspring  will  be  one-fourth  albinos 
and  three-fourths  apparently  normal  persons.  And  if 
these  latter  intermarry,  one-third  will  have  only  normal 
offspring,  while  two-thirds  will  have  offspring  again  in  the 
proportion  of  one-fourth  albinos  and  three-fourths  ap- 
parently normal.  This  shows  that  of  the  second  genera- 
tion one-fourth  were  albinos,  one-fourth  pure  normals,  and 
one  half  hybrids  which  appeared  to  be  normal  but  were 
in  fact  not  so,  so  far  as  their  germ  cells  were  concerned. 

Mendel's  law  thus  shows  us  the  manner  of  transmission 
of  hereditary  traits  in  individual  cases.  It  is  highly  impor- 
tant for  the  sociologist,  especially  in  his  study  of  the  results 
of  the  crossing  of  races  and  of  normal  with  abnormal  stocks. 

To  sum  up,  the  factor  of  heredity  in  evolution  preserves 
the  continuity  of  the  racial  or  family  type,  but  the  minute, 
personal  traits  of  the  individual  are  not  transmissible,  and 
especially  not  those  which  are  acquired;  in  a  word,  nothing 
is  inherited  except  the  characteristics  of  the  stock,  the  traits 
which  are  inherent  in  the  germ  plasm.  These  hereditary 
traits,  however,  not  only  determine  to  a  large  extent  the 
physical  characteristics  of  the  adult  individual,  but  also,  to 
a  lesser  degree,  his  mental  and  moral  character. 

(3)  Variation.  This  factor  in  organic  evolution  means 
that  no  two  individuals,  even  though  born  of  the  same 
parents,  are  exactly  like  each  other.  Neither  do  they 
exactly  conform  in  their  type  to  Mendel's  law,  as  theoret- 
ically they  should  do.  Every  new  individual  born  in  the 
organic  world,  then,  while  it  resembles  its  parents  and 
belongs  to  its  species  or  race,  varies  within  certain  limits. 
This  variation  so  runs  through  organic  nature  that  we  are 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS      43 

told  that  there  are  no  two  leaves  on  a  single  tree  exactly 
alike.  Such  variation  is  of  two  sorts:  First,  variations  in 
degree,  relatively  minute,  fluctuating  variations  which  are 
probably  not  transmissible  by  heredity;  secondly,  varia- 
tions in  quality,  or  discontinuous  variations,  also  called 
"mutations."  It  is  these  latter  which  are  fruitful  for 
evolution,  as  they  persist  in  the  stock.  The  causes  of  this 
variation  are  not  yet  well  understood,  but  the  evident 
result  is  that  individuals  are  born  unequal;  for  some  indi- 
viduals vary  in  favorable  directions,  others  in  unfavorable 
directions.  Some  are  born  strong,  some  weak;  some  in- 
ferior, some  superior. 

It  is  evident  that  variation  characterizes  the  human 
species  quite  as  much  as  other  species,  and  indeed  the  limits 
of  variation  are  wider,  probably,  in  the  human  species  than 
in  any  other  species.  Man  is  the  most  variable  of  all 
animals,  and  human  individuality  and  personality  owe  not 
a  little  of  their  distinctiveness  to  this  fact.  No  more  in 
human  society  than  in  the  animal  world  are  individuals 
born  alike,  or  with  equal  natural  endowments.  From  a 
biological  point  of  view  there  is  no  truth  hi  the  old  belief 
that  all  men  are  born  equal.  It  is  only  in  a  moral  sense  that 
we  may  hold  that  men  are  equals. 

(4)  The  Struggle  for  Existence.  Individuals  in  all  spe- 
cies, as  we  have  seen,  are  born  in  larger  numbers  than 
is  necessary.  The  result  is  that  a  competition  is  entered 
into  between  species  and  between  individuals  within  the 
species  for  place  and  for  existence.  This  competition  or 
struggle  results  in  the  dying  out  of  the  inferior,  that  is,  of 
those  who  are  not  adapted  to  their  environment.  The  grad- 
ual dying  out  of  the  inferior  or  unadapted  through  com- 


44      THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

petition  results  in  the  survival  of  the  superior  or  better 
adapted,  and  ultimately  in  the  survival  of  the  fittest  or 
those  most  adapted.  Thus  the  type  is  raised,  and  we  have 
evolution  through  natural  selection,  that  is,  through  the 
elimination  of  the  unfit. 

Some  have  thought  that  this  struggle  for  existence 
which  is  so  evident  in  the  animal  world  does  not  take 
place  in  human  society.  This,  however,  is  a  mistake. 
The  struggle  for  existence  in  human  society  is  not  an  un- 
mitigated one,  as  it  seems  to  be  very  often  in  the  animal 
world,  but  it  is  nevertheless  a  struggle  which  has  the  same 
consequences.  In  the  human  world  the  competition,  ex- 
cept in  the  lower  classes,  is  not  so  much  for  food,  as  it 
is  for  position  and  for  supremacy.  But  this  struggle  for 
place  and  power  results  in  human  society  in  the  weak  and 
inferior  going  to  the  wall,  and  therefore  ultimately  in 
their  elimination.  In  all  essential  respects,  then,  the 
struggle  for  existence  goes  on  in  human  society  as  it  does 
in  the  animal  world.  This  means  that  in  society,  as  in  the 
animal  world,  progress  depends  upon  the  elimination  of 
unfit  individuals.  The  unfit  in  human  society,  as  we  shall 
see,  are  especially  those  who  cannot  adapt  themselves  to 
their  social  environment.  Progress  in  society,  in  a  certain 
sense,  waits  upon  death,  as  it  does  in  all  the  rest  of  the 
animal  world.  Death  is  the  means  by  which  the  stream 
of  life  is  purged  from  its  inferior  and  unfit  elements. 

The  struggle  for  existence  is  especially  illustrated  in 
the  world  of  human  industry.  Not  only  do  individuals 
lose  place  and  power  because  they  are  unadapted  to  their 
environment,  but  also  economic  groups,  such  as  corpora- 
tions, show  the  natural  competition  or  struggle  for  existence 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS      45 

sometimes  in  its  most  intense  form.  The  result  in  all  cases 
is  the  weeding  out  of  the  least  adapted  and  the  survival 
of  the  better  adapted.  Thus  through  competition  and  the 
survival  of  the  better  adapted  is  secured  in  industry  the 
evolution  of  higher  types  of  industrial  organization,  in- 
dustrial methods,  and  the  Like,  just  as  higher  types  are 
secured  in  the  same  way  in  the  animal  world.  But  in 
economic  matters  as  in  other  social  affairs  cooperation 
continually  comes  in  to  modify  competition  and  to  lift  it 
to  a  higher  plane. 

A  word  of  caution  is  perhaps  necessary  against  con- 
fusing the  economic  struggle  as  it  exists  in  modern  society 
with  the  natural  struggle  under  primitive  conditions.  It 
is  evident  that  in  present  society  the  economic  struggle 
has  been  greatly  changed  in  character  from  the  primitive 
struggle,  and  therefore  can  no  longer  have  the  same  results. 
Laws  of  inheritance,  of  taxation,  and  many  other  artificial 
economic  conditions  have  greatly  interfered  with  the 
natural  struggle.  The  rich  and  economically  successful 
are,  therefore,  by  no  means  to  be  confused  with  the  bio- 
logically fit.  On  the  contrary  many  of  the  economically 
successful  are  such  simply  through  artificial  advantageous 
circumstances  and  from  the  standpoint  of  biology  and 
sociology  they  are  often  among  the  less  fit,  rather  than  the 
more  fit,  elements  of  society. 

(5)  Another  Factor  in  Organic  Evolution  is  Cooperation, 
or  altruism.  As  Henry  Drummond  has  said,  this  is  the 
struggle  not  for  one's  own  life  but  for  the  lives  of  others. 
Really,  however,  it  is  a  device  which  enables  a  group  of 
individuals  to  struggle  more  successfully  with  the  adverse 
factors  in  their  environment.  Something  of  cooperation,  — 


46      THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

that  is,  a  group  of  individuals  carrying  on  a  common 
life,  —  is  found  almost  at  the  beginning  of  life,  and,  as  we 
rise  in  the  scale  of  animal  creation,  the  amount  of  coopera- 
tion and  of  altruistic  feelings  which  accompany  it  very 
greatly  increases.  Perhaps  the  chief  source  of  this  cooper- 
ation is  to  be  found  in  the  rearing  of  offspring.  The  family 
group,  even  in  the  lower  animals,  seems  to  be  the  chief 
source  of  altruism.  At  any  rate,  sympathetic  or  altruistic 
instincts  grow  up  in  all  animals,  probably  chiefly  through 
the  necessities  of  reproduction. 

It  is  only  in  human  social  life  that  cooperation,  or  al- 
truism, attains  its  full  development.  Human  society  is 
characterized  by  the  protection  it  affords  to  its  weaker  mem- 
bers, and  in  human  society  the  natural  process  of  eliminat- 
ing the  inferior  often  seems  reversed.  As  Huxley  has 
pointed  out,  human  society  tries  to  fit  as  many  as  possible 
to  survive,  and  we  may  add,  not  only  to  survive,  but  to 
live  well.  Altruism  and  its  resulting  cooperation  have 
come  especially  to  characterize  human  social  evolution. 
To  some  extent  this  is  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  necessities  of 
group  survival;  for  only  that  nation,  for  example,  can 
survive  that  can  maintain  the  most  loyal  citizenship,  the 
best  institutions,  and  the  largest  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  in 
its  members.  Human  social  groups,  therefore,  try  to  fit 
as  many  individuals  as  possible  for  the  most  efficient 
membership,  and  this  necessitates  caring  for  the  tempo- 
rarily weak,  and  also  for  the  permanently  incapacitated, 
in  order  that  the  sentiments  of  social  solidarity  may  be 
strengthened  to  their  utmost. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  all  the  factors  at  work  in  organic 
evolution  are  at  work  also  in  social  evolution,  though  in 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS      47 

some  part  modified  and  varying  in  degree.  The  struggle 
for  existence  in  human  society,  for  example,  has  been 
greatly  modified  from  the  condition  in  the  early  animal 
world,  while  cooperation,  or  altruism,  is  much  more  highly 
developed.  Nevertheless,  the  factors  of  organic  evolu- 
tion are  at  work  in  social  evolution  and  must  be  taken 
into  full  account  by  the  student  of  social  problems.  Social 
evolution  rests  upon  organic  evolution. 

Salient  Features  of  Social  Evolution  from  the  Biological 
Standpoint.  —  In  order  to  sum  up  and  make  clear  some 
of  the  principal  applications  of  the  biological  principles 
just  stated,  let  us  consider  briefly  some  of  the  salient  fea- 
tures of  social  evolution  from  the  biological  standpoint. 

The  Origin  of  Society.  Social  evolution  is  rooted  in  the 
necessities  of  organic  existence.  By  biological  necessity 
most  species  of  animals  live  in  groups.  The  processes  of 
both  nutrition  and  reproduction  in  all  higher  forms  of 
life  involve  more  or  less  association  of  members  of  the 
same  species.  The  association  of  the  sexes  and  of  parents 
and  offspring  is  necessary  among  higher  animals  for  the 
reproduction,  care,  and  rearing  of  offspring.  Among  these, 
too,  some  degree  of  association  is  usually  necessary  for 
the  procuring  of  an  adequate  food  supply  and  for  pro- 
tection against  enemies.  Thus  the  basis  of  social  evolution 
has  been  this  necessary  interdependence  among  organisms 
of  the  same  species  in  the  organic  processes  of  life.  Life, 
then,  has  never  developed  in  an  isolated  way,  each  indi- 
vidual by  himself.  From  the  very  start  there  has  been 
unity,  group  life,  among  individuals  of  the  same  species. 

The  Struggle  for  Existence  in  Human  Society.  From  the 
very  beginning  there  has  been  no  such  thing  as  unmitigated 


48      THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

individual  struggle  among  animals.  Nowhere  in  nature 
does  pure  individualism  exist  in  the  sense  that  the  indi- 
vidual animal  struggles  alone,  except  perhaps  in  a  few 
solitary  species  which  are  apparently  on  the  way  to  ex- 
tinction. The  assumption  of  such  a  primitive  individual 
struggle  has  been  at  the  bottom  of  many  erroneous  views  of 
human  society.  The  primary  conflict  is  between  species. 
A  secondary  conflict,  however,  is  always  found  between  the 
members  of  the  same  species.  Usually  this  conflict  within 
the  species  is  a  competition  between  groups.  The  human 
species  exactly  illustrates  these  statements.  Primitively 
its  great  conflict  was  with  other  species  of  animals.  The 
supremacy  of  man  over  the  rest  of  the  animal  world  was 
won  only  after  an  age-long  conflict  between  man  and  his 
animal  rivals.  While  this  conflict  went  on  there  was 
apparently  but  little  struggle  within  the  species  itself.  The 
lowest  groups  of  which  we  have  knowledge,  while  con- 
tinually struggling  against  nature,  are  rarely  at  war  with 
one  another.  But  after  man  had  won  his  supremacy  over 
nature  and  the  population  of  groups  increased  so  as  to 
encroach  seriously  upon  food  supply,  and  even  territorial 
limits  of  space,  then  a  conflict  between  human  groups,  which 
we  call  war,  broke  out  and  became  almost  second  nature 
to  man.  In  other  words,  war  was  occasioned  very  largely 
by  numbers  and  food  supply.  To  this  extent  at  least  war 
primitively  arose  from  economic  conditions,  and  it  is  re- 
markable how  economic  conditions  have  had  a  part  in  bring- 
ing about  all  the  great  wars  of  human  history. 

The  Social  Effects  of  War.  Along  with  the  obvious  de- 
structive effects  of  war  have  gone  certain  effects  upon  the 
evolution  of  human  groups  which  we  must  note.  War  has 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS       49 

been  the  chief  agency  of  group  selection  among  mankind 
in  the  past,  and  as  such  it  has  had  an  immense  effect  upon 
human  social  evolution.  We  may  note  five  chief  effects :  — 

(1)  Intergroup  struggle  gave  rise  to  higher  forms  of 
social  organization  because  only  those  groups  could  succeed 
in  competition  with  other  groups  that  were  well  organized, 
and  especially  only  those  that  had  competent  leadership. 

(2)  Government,  as  we  know  it  in  history,  was  very 
largely  an  outcome  of  the  necessities  of  this  intergroup 
struggle,  or  war.    As  we  have  seen,  the  groups  that  were 
best  organized,  that  had  the  most  competent  leadership, 
would  stand  the  best  chance  of  surviving.    Consequently 
the  war  leader  or  chief  soon  came,  through  habit,  to  be 
looked  upon  as  the  head  of  the  group  in  all  matters.    More- 
over, the  exigencies  and  stresses  of  war  frequently  neces- 
sitated giving  the  war  chief  supreme  authority  in  times  of 
danger,  and  from  this,  without  doubt,  arose  despotism  in 
all  of  its  forms.    The  most  primitive  tribes  are  republican 
or  democratic  in  their  form  of  government;  but  it  has  been 
found  that  despotic  forms  of  government  rapidly  develop 
where  a  people  are  continually  at  war  with  other  peoples. 

(3)  A  third  result  of  war  in  early  society  was  the  creation 
of  social  classes.    After  a  certain  stage  was  reached  groups 
tried  not  so  much  to  exterminate  one  another  as  to  con- 
quer and  absorb  one  another.     This  was,  of  course,  after 
agriculture  had  been  developed  and  slave  labor  had  reached 
a  considerable  value.     Under  such  circumstances  a  con- 
quered group  would  be  incorporated  by  the  conquerors  as 
a  slave  or  subject  class.     Later,  this  enslaved  class  may 
have  become  partially  free  as  compared  with  some  more 
recently  subjugated  or  enslaved  classes,  and  several  classes 


50      THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

in  this  way  could  emerge  in  a  group  through  war  or  con- 
quest. Moreover,  the  presence  of  these  alien  and  subject 
elements  in  a  group  necessitated  a  stronger  and  more 
centralized  government  to  keep  them  in  control,  and  this 
was  again  one  way  in  which  war  favored  a  development  of 
despotic  governments.  Later,  of  course,  economic  condi- 
tions gave  rise  to  classes,  and  to  certain  struggles  between 
the  classes  composing  a  people. 

(4)  Not  only  were  social  and  political  organization  and 
the  evolution  of  classes  favored  by  intergroup  struggle, 
but  also  the  evolution  of  morality.    The  group  that  could 
be  most  efficiently  organized  would  be,  other  things  being 
equal,  the  group  which  had  the  most  loyal  and  most  self- 
sacrificing  membership.     The  group  that  lacked  a  group 
spirit,  that  is,  strong  sentiments  of  solidarity,  and  harmo- 
nious relations  between  its  members,  would  be  the  group 
that  would  be  apt  to  lose  in  conflict  with  other  groups, 
and  so  its  type  would  tend  to  be  eliminated.    The  morality 
which  war  developed,  however,  was  a  narrow,  or  " group" 
morality;  and  it  was  autocratic  rather  than  democratic. 
Thus  while  loyalty,  mutual  aid,  and  honor  were  enforced 
within  the  tribe,  war  encouraged  the  disregard  of  the  rights 
of  all  outside;  and  while  war  developed  habits  of  obedience, 
service,  and  self-sacrifice  on  the  part  of  all  members  of  the 
group,  it  led  to  the  disregard  of  the  life  and  personality  of 
individuals. 

(5)  A  final  consequence  of  war  among  human  groups 
has  been  the  absorption  of  weaker  groups  and  the  growth 
of  larger  and  larger  political  groups  until  in  modern  times 
a  few  great  nations  dominate  the  population  of  the  whole 
world.     That  this  was  not  the   primitive  condition,  we 


Si 

know  from  human  history  and  from  other  facts  which 
indicate  the  disappearance  of  a  vast  number  of  human 
groups  in  the  past.  The  earth  is  a  burial  ground  of  tribes 
and  nations  as  well  as  of  individuals.  In  the  competition 
between  human  groups,  only  a  few  that  have  had  efficient 
organization  and  government,  loyal  membership,  and  high 
standards  of  conduct  within  the  group,  have  survived. 
Philologists  estimate  that  for  every  living  language  there 
are  twenty  dead  languages.  Remembering  that  one  lan- 
guage not  infrequently  stands  for  several  groups  with  re- 
lated cultures,  we  can  get  an  inkling  of  the  immense  num- 
ber of  human  societies  that  have  perished  in  the  past  in 
this  intergroup  competition. 

War,  however,  is  a  barbarous  means  of  competition  and 
selection  between  groups.  While  once  war  selected  well 
the  stronger,  more  efficient,  more  socialized  groups,  modern 
wars  produce  a  "reversal  of  selection"  in  society,  killing 
off  the  socially  fittest,  and  tend  to  rebarbarize  moral 
standards.  Hence,  higher  civilization  must  find  a  better 
method  of  deciding  the  competition  between  groups. 

Competition.  Even  though  war  passes  away  entirely, 
nations  can  never  escape  competition.  While  the  com- 
petition may  not  be  upon  the  low  and  brutal  plane  of  war, 
it  will  certainly  go  on  upon  the  higher  plane  of  commerce 
and  industry  and  will  probably  be  on  this  higher  plane 
quite  as  decisive  in  the  life  of  peoples  in  the  future  as  war 
was  in  the  past. 

While  the  primary  struggle  within  the  human  species 
has  been  in  the  historic  period  between  nations  and  races, 
this  is  not  saying,  of  course,  that  struggle  and  competition 
has  not  gone  on  within  these  larger  groups.  On  the  con- 


52       THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

trary,  a  continual  struggle  has  gone  on  between  classes, 
first  perhaps  of  racial  origin  and  later  of  economic  origin. 
Also  there  is  within  the  nation  a  struggle  between  parties 
and  sects  and  sometimes  between  "sections"  and  com- 
munities. Usually,  however,  the  competition  within  the 
nation  is  a  peaceful  one  and  does  not  come  to  bloodshed. 

Again  within  each  of  these  minor  groups  that  we  have 
mentioned  struggle  and  competition  in  some  modified  form 
goes  on  between  its  members.  Thus  within  a  party  or  class 
there  is  apt  to  be  a  struggle  or  competition  between  factions. 
There  is,  indeed,  no  human  group  that  is  free  from  struggle 
or  competition  between  its  members,  unless  it  be  the  family. 

Competition  and  Cooperation.  Evidently,  competition 
and  cooperation  are  twin  principles  in  the  evolution  of 
social  groups.  While  competition  characterizes  in  the  main 
the  relation  between  groups,  especially  independent  political 
groups,  and  while  cooperation  characterizes  in  the  main 
the  relation  of  the  members  of  a  given  group  to  one  an- 
other, still  competition  and  cooperation  are  correlatives 
in  practically  every  phase  of  the  social  life.  Some  degree 
of  competition,  for  example,  has  to  be  maintained  by  every 
group  between  its  members  if  it  is  going  to  maintain  high 
standards  of  efficiency  or  of  loyalty.  If  there  were  no  com- 
petition with  respect  to  the  matters  that  concern  the  inner 
life  of  groups,  it  is  evident  that  the  groups  would  soon  lose 
efficiency  in  leadership  and  in  membership  and  would 
sooner  or  later  be  eliminated. 

It  follows  from  this  that  competition  and  cooperation 
are  both  equally  important  in  the  life  of  society.  It  has 
been  a  favorite  idea  that  competition  among  human  beings 
should  be  done  away  with,  and  that  cooperation  should  be 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS   53 

substituted  to  take  its  place  entirely.  It  is  evident,  how- 
ever, that  this  idea  is  impossible  of  realization.  If  a 
social  group  were  to  check  all  competition  between  its  mem- 
bers, it  would  stop  thereby  the  process  of  natural  selection 
or  of  the  elimination  of  the  unfit,  and,  as  a  consequence, 
would  soon  cease  to  progress.  If  some  scheme  of  arti- 
ficial selection  were  substituted  to  take  the  place  of  natural 
selection,  it  is  evident  that  competition  would  still  have  to 
be  retained  to  determine  who  were  the  fittest.  A  society 
that  would  give  positions  of  trust  and  responsibility  to 
individuals  without  imposing  some  competitive  test  upon 
them  would  be  like  a  ship  built  partly  of  good  and  partly 
of  rotten  wood,  —  it  would  soon  go  to  pieces. 

What  people  may  rightfully  object  to  is,  not  competition, 
but  unregulated  or  unfair  competition.  In  the  interest  of 
solidarity,  that  is,  in  the  interest  of  the  life  of  the  group  as  a 
whole,  all  forms  of  competition  in  human  society  should  be 
so  regulated  that  the  rules  governing  the  competition  may 
be  known  and  the  competition  itself  public.  It  is  evident 
that  in  politics  and  in  business  we  are  very  far  from  this 
ideal  as  yet,  although  society  is  unquestionably  moving 
toward  it. 

The  Necessity  of  Selection  in  Society.  This  leads  us  to 
emphasize  the  continued  necessity  of  selection  in  society. 
No  doubt  natural  selection  is  often  a  brutal  and  wasteful 
means  of  eliminating  the  weak  in  human  societies,  and  no 
doubt  human  reason  might  devise  superior  means  of  bring- 
ing about  the  selection  of  individuals  which  society  must 
maintain.  To  some  extent  it  has  done  this  through  sys- 
tems of  education  and  the  like,  which  are,  in  the  main, 
selective  processes  for  picking  out  the  most  competent 


54     THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION   UPON   SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

individuals  to  perform  certain  social  functions.  But 
the  natural  competition,  or  struggle  between  individ- 
uals, has  not  been  done  away  with,  especially  in  economic 
matters,  and  it  is  evidently  impossible  to  do  away  with  it 
until  some  vast  scheme  of  artificial  selection  can  take  its 
place.  Such  a  scheme  is  so  far  in  the  future  that  it  is  hardly 
worth  talking  about.  The  best  that  society  can  apparently 
do  at  the  present  time  is  to  regulate  the  natural  competition 
between  individuals,  and  this  it  is  doing  increasingly. 

The  Sociological  View  of  Morality.  A  word  in  conclusion 
about  the  nature  of  moral  codes  and  standards  from  the 
social  point  of  view.  It  is  evident  that  moral  codes  from 
the  social  point  of  view  are  simply  formulations  of  standards 
of  conduct  which  groups  find  it  convenient  or  necessary  to 
impose  upon  their  members.  Even  morality,  in  an  idealistic 
sense,  seems  from  a  sociological  standpoint  to  be  those  forms 
of  conduct  which  conduce  to  social  harmony,  to  social  effi- 
ciency, and  so  to  the  survival  of  the  group.  Groups,  how- 
ever, as  we  have  already  pointed  out,  cannot  do  as  they 
please.  They  are  always  hard-pressed  in  competition  by 
other  groups  and  have  to  meet  the  standards  of  efficiency 
which  nature  imposes.  Morality,  therefore,  is  not  any- 
thing arbitrarily  designed  by  the  group,  but  is  a  standard 
of  conduct  which  necessities  of  social  survival  require.  In 
other  words,  the  right,  from  the  point  of  view  of  natural 
science,  is  that  which  ultimately  conduces  to  survival,  not 
of  the  individual,  but  of  the  group  or  of  the  species.  This 
is  looking  at  morality,  of  course,  from  the  sociological  point 
of  view,  and  in  no  way  denies  the  religious  and  metaphysical 
view  of  morality,  which  may  be  equally  valid  from  a  differ- 
ent standpoint. 


THEORY  OF  EVOLUTION  UPON   SOCIAL  PROBLEMS      55 

Limits  of  Freedom  or  Variation  in  Human  Society. 
Finally,  we  need  to  note  that  natural  selection  does  not 
necessitate  in  any  mechanical  sense  certain  conduct  on  the 
part  of  individuals  or  groups.  Rather,  natural  selection 
marks  the  limits  of  variation  which  nature  permits,  and 
within  those  limits  of  variation  there  is  a  large  amount  of 
freedom  of  choice,  both  to  individuals  and  to  groups. 
Human  societies,  therefore,  may  be  conceivably  free  to  take 
one  of  several  paths  of  development  at  any  particular  point. 
But  in  the  long  run  they  must  conform  to  the  ultimate 
conditions  of  survival;  and  this  probably  means  that  the 
goal  of  their  evolution  is  largely  fixed  for  them.  Human 
groups  are  free  only  in  the  sense  that  they  may  go  either 
backward  or  forward  on  the  path  which  the  conditions  of 
survival  mark  out  for  them.  They  are  free  to  progress  or 
to  perish.  But  social  evolution  in  any  case,  in  the  sense 
of  social  change  either  toward  higher  or  toward  lower 
social  adaptation,  is  a  necessity  that  cannot  be  escaped. 
Sociology  and  all  social  science  is,  therefore,  a  study 
not  of  what  human  groups  would  like  to  do,  but  of 
what  they  must  do  in  order  to  survive,  that  is,  how  they 
can  control  their  environment  by  utilizing  the  laws  which 
govern  universal  evolution. 

From  this  brief  and  most  elementary  consideration  of  the 
bearings  of  evolutionary  theory  upon  social  problems  it  is 
evident  that  evolution,  in  the  sense  of  what  we  know  about 
the  development  of  life  and  society  in  the  past,  must  be  the 
guidepost  of  the  sociologist.  Human  social  evolution, 
we  repeat,  rests  upon  and  is  conditioned  by  biological  evo- 
lution at  every  point.  There  is,  therefore,  scarcely  any 
sanity  in  sociology  without  the  biological  point  of  view. 


56     THEORY  OF   EVOLUTION  UPON   SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

Yet  social  evolution  must  not  be  confused  with  organic 
evolution.  Social  evolution  is  essentially  psychic,  and 
organic  evolution  is  only  its  basis. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

CONKLIN,  Heredity  and  Environment,  Chaps.  IV,  VI. 
ELLWOOD,  Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  Chap.  II. 
THOMSON,  Darwinism  and  Human  Life,  Chaps.  V,  VI. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

CHAPDJ,  An  Introduction  to  Social  Evolution,  Chaps.  I-IIL 

CONN,  Social  Heredity  and  Social  Evolution,  Chap.  I. 

CRAMPTON,  The  Doctrine  of  Evolution,  Chap.  VII. 

DARWIN,  Descent  of  Man,  Chaps.  I-V. 

GrooiNGS,  The  Principles  of  Sociology. 

GILLETTE,  Sociology,  Chaps.  II-V. 

KELLOGG,  Darwinism  To-day. 

KELSEY,  The  Physical  Basis  of  Society,  Chaps.  I-VL 

MARETT,  Anthropology. 

OSBORN,  Men  of  the  Old  Stone  Age. 

THOMSON  and  GEDDES,  Evolution. 

WALTER,  Genetics. 

On  the  religious  aspects  of  evolution: 
DRUMMOND,  Ascent  of  Man. 
FISKE,  The  Destiny  of  Man. 
FISKE,  Through  Nature  to  God. 


CHAPTER   III1 

THE    BEARING    OF    MODERN   PSYCHOLOGY    UPON    SOCIAL 
PROBLEMS 

WHEN  mind  or  consciousness  appeared  in  organic  evo- 
lution the  whole  balance  of  the  world  of  life  was  changed. 
Thereafter  the  determining  factors  in  the  life-process 
became  more  and  more  the  inner  and  mental,  not  the  outer 
and  physical.  Accordingly,  to  understand  human  society 
we  must  understand  something  of  the  mental  life  of  man, 
for  the  interactions  of  individuals  in  human  society  are 
chiefly  interactions  of  their  thoughts,  feelings,  and  will. 
Hence,  psychology,  the  science  of  our  mental  life,  must  be 
the  immediate  basis  of  the  larger  part  of  sociology.  Knowl- 
edge of  the  psychology  of  human  conduct,  of  behavior, 
is  accordingly  indispensable  to  the  student  of  sociology. 

Modern  Functional  Psychology.  —  The  earlier  develop- 
ments of  psychological  science  laid  a  great  deal  of  stress 
upon  the  analysis  of  the  structure  or  content  of  the  individ- 
ual mind,  that  is,  upon  the  analysis  of  the  states  of  con- 
sciousness into  their  constituent  elements.  While  this  part 
of  psychology  is  recognized  to  be  of  very  great  importance 
for  the  understanding  of  the  mind  in  itself,  it  is  not  so 
important  to  the  sociologist,  for  he  deals  with  the  person  in 
action.  What  the  sociologist  needs  is  a  science  of  the  mind 

1  In  a  brief  course  of  study  this  chapter  may  be  omitted. 
57 


58        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

in  action.  This  is  usually  called  functional  psychology. 
It  deals  with  individual  human  conduct  or  behavior  in  the 
widest  sense,  thus  furnishing  the  basis  for  explaining  the 
interactions  of  individuals  and  the  evolution  of  social  organ- 
ization. 

Modern  functional  psychology  is  in  its  point  of  view 
broadly  biological;  that  is,  according  to  modern  psychology, 
mind  is  not  something  apart  from  life,  but  is  a  functioning 
element  in  the  life  process.  It  is  subject,  like  everything 
else  in  life,  therefore,  to  the  laws  of  organic  evolution  which 
we  have  just  considered.  The  fundamental  attributes  of 
our  mental  life  are  not  acquired  by  the  individual  in  his 
lifetime,  but  are  as  much  determined  by  natural  selection 
as  the  general  characteristics  of  our  bodies.  Thus  our 
impulses,  our  feelings,  desires,  and  interests  so  far  as  they 
are  inborn  are  in  the  long  run  determined  by  natural  selec- 
tion. The  thought  of  evolution  thus  dominates  modern 
psychology  as  well  as  modern  biology  and  sociology;  but 
it  must  be  borne  in  mind,  of  course,  that  natural  selection 
is  merely  the  elimination  of  the  least  favorable  variations 
and  is  thus  a  framework  within  which  a  very  large  amount 
of  free  variation  is  possible;  and  that  only  very  indirectly 
has  natural  selection  anything  to  do  with  the  habits  which 
the  individual  acquires  within  his  lifetime. 

The  Function  of  the  Mind.  —  All  biologists  and  psy- 
chologists are  agreed  that  the  brain  is  primarily  an  adaptive 
organ.  Now,  whatever  may  be  the  exact  relation  of  mind 
and  body,  this  means  that  the  function  of  those  higher 
neural  processes  which  involve  consciousness  is  primarily  to 
aid  the  organism  in  adaptation,  especially  when  the  process 
is  rapid  and  complex.  Mental  processes,  in  other  words, 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        59 

are  chiefly  concerned  with  the  guidance  and  control  of 
complex  activities.  Not  all  bodily  activities  or  acts  are 
accompanied  by  consciousness;  but  wherever  the  purely 
physiological  mechanism  is  insufficient  to  secure  the  proper 
adaptation  of  the  organism  to  its  environment,  then  con- 
sciousness appears,  to  contrcl  and  direct  movement.  All 
the  aspects  of  the  mind  present  themselves,  therefore,  from 
one  point  of  view,  as  devices  to  secure  the  superior  adapta- 
tion of  the  organism  to  the  environment.  As  Professor 
Angell  says,  "Mind  seems  to  be  the  master  device  by  means 
of  which  the  adaptive  operations  of  organic  life  may  be 
made  more  perfect." 

It  would  be  a  mistake,  however,  to  think  that  the  mind 
is  concerned  merely  with  the  passive  adaptation  of  the 
organism  to  the  environment,  that  is,  bending  and  shaping 
activities  to  meet  the  requirements  of  the  enviroment.  On 
the  contrary,  in  its  higher  development  the  mind  is  equally 
concerned  with  the  adaptation  of  the  environment  to  the 
needs  of  the  organism.  This  results  from  what  is  known  as 
the  spontaneity  or  self-activity  of  the  organism.  The  old 
conception  of  human  nature,  that  is,  that  the  individual 
is  passive  with  reference  to  his  environment  and  that  his 
behavior  is  entirely  determined  by  environmental  stimuli, 
is  quite  entirely  given  up  by  modern  biology  and 
psychology.  The  new  conception  is  that  the  organism  is 
essentially  active,  that  it  is  a  relatively  independent  center 
of  energy  whose  activities  are  directed  to  sustaining  and 
maintaining  itself.  These  activities  of  the  organism  spring 
from  its  own  organic  needs,  such  as  nutrition  and  repro- 
duction, and  are  directed  to  the  satisfying  of  those  needs. 
Accordingly,  the  immediate  sources  of  activity  must  be 


sought  within  the  organism  and  not  outside.  Activities  or 
actions  spring  from  the  physiological  impulses  within  the 
individual  organism.  And  the  higher  we  ascend  in  the 
animal  scale,  the  more  pronounced  becomes  this  tendency 
to  expend  energy,  which  biologists  call  the  katabolic  tend- 
ency. Hence,  the  act  begins  within  in  the  physiological 
impulse,  but  the  development  of  the  act  depends  upon  the 
stimuli  which  the  environment  affords. 

Now,  it  follows  that  the  organism  is  not  to  any  such 
extent  in  subjection  to  its  environment  as  the  older  social 
theorists  supposed.  No  activity  could  develop,  to  be  sure, 
without  some  stimulus  from  the  environment.  The  organ- 
ism is,  therefore,  dependent  upon  the  environment  for  the 
development  and  continuance  of  its  activities.  But  the 
beginning  of  the  activity  is  in  the  self-activity  of  the  organ- 
ism, and  the  stimulus  which  is  attended  to  is  selected  by 
the  organism  from  among  a  countless  number.  Only  in- 
directly, therefore,  through  natural  selection  and  acquired 
habit,  is  the  individual  organism  in  subjection  to  its  en- 
vironment. Natural  selection  has  fixed  in  us  certain  innate 
or  hereditary  reactions  to  stimuli,  but  even  these  are  not 
hard  and  fast  in  man  and  the  higher  animals;  while  acquired 
habits  create  certain  pathways  in  the  nervous  system  which 
favor  persistent  forms  of  activity.  But  in  man  conscious 
choice  plays  a  leading  part  in  determining  what  habits  the 
individual  shall  have. 

The  mind  is,  therefore,  essentially  selective  in  its  work- 
ings. Its  whole  business  is  to  select  from  among  the  stimuli 
which  surround  an  organism,  those  which  are  needful  for 
the  maintenance  and  development  of  its  activities.  The 
basis  of  this  selection  is  the  inner  organization  of  the  organ- 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        61 

ism,  that  is,  its  instincts  and  acquired  habits.  Thus  it 
builds  up  the  activities  which  are  needful  for  maintaining 
and  developing  life.  The  mind  presents  itself,  therefore, 
as  a  delicate  apparatus  for  mastering  the  environment. 
In  the  highest  development  of  mental  life  the  subjection 
to  the  environment  becomes  less  and  less,  that  is,  the  power 
of  transforming  the  environment  becomes  greater  and 
greater.  This  is  the  case  with  man.  It  is  by  might  of 
intelligence  that  he  has  conquered  the  world. 

Bearing  in  mind  the  fact  that  the  environment  to  which 
the  human  individual  has  to  adapt  himself  is  above  all  a 
social  environment  of  other  individuals  and  that  the  social 
life  consists  of  a  series  of  complex  reciprocal  relations  or 
adaptations  between  individuals,  the  social  significance* 
of  the  mind  becomes  manifest.  It  is  evident  that  the 
function  of  the  human  mind  is  especially  to  adjust  in- 
dividuals to  one  another  in  a  common  life,  to  act  as  a 
link  between  individuals,  and  to  further  their  better 
mutual  adaptation  to  one  another  in  the  process  of  living 
together. 

Different  levels  or  aspects  of  the  functioning  of  the 
mind  in  human  behavior  are  conveniently  distinguished 
for  the  sake  of  clearness  in  psychological  and  sociological 
analysis.  These  are  the  instinctive,  the  habitual,  the  feel- 
ing, the  intelligent,  and  the  rational  levels.  All  of  these 
are  found  in  human  social  behavior. 

The  Native  Impulses,  or  the  Instincts.  —  First  of 
all  come  those  hereditary  reactions  which  psychologists 
call  the  native  impulses  or  the  "instincts."  In  man,  and 
in  all  of  the  higher  animals,  there  is  a  highly  developed 
nervous  system  with  multitudes  of  connections  between 


62        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

its  elements.  These  are  pathways  for  nervous  currents. 
Now,  many  of  these  connections  are  inborn  —  are  a  part 
of  our  human  heredity.  Hence  among  our  nervous  re- 
actions to  external  stimuli  are  certain  reactions  more  or 
less  definitely  preorganized  by  heredity.  The  larger  part 
of  these  preorganized  reactioi_s  have  been  fixed  in  the 
species  through  the  operation  of  natural  selection  in  the 
same  way  in  which  the  bodily  characteristics  of  the  species 
have  been  established.  These  the  psychologists  call  the 
"instincts." 

Instincts  are  thus  not  acquired  by  the  individual,  but 
are  the  psychological  expression,  on  the  side  of  behavior, 
of  his  racial  heredity,  and  like  other  inborn  traits  are 
transmitted  from  generation  to  generation  with  but  little 
variation.  In  man,  however,  the  instincts  differ  from  those 
of  the  lower  animals.  Not  only  has  man  more  instincts 
on  account  of  the  more  complex  hereditary  structure  of 
his  nervous  system,  but  for  this  reason  they  are  more 
variable  and  alterable.  In  many  of  the  lower  forms  of 
life,  such  as  the  insects,  the  instincts  give  rise  to  very 
fixed  forms  of  behavior.  In  man  there  are  few,  if  any, 
such  fixed  forms  of  behavior  due  to  instinct,  owing  to  his 
much  more  complex  hereditary  nervous  structure  and  to 
the  fact  that  the  larger  part  of  the  connections  in  his  nerv- 
ous system  are  acquired  during  the  lifetime  of  the  indi- 
vidual. The  instincts  in  man  are  variable  also  owing  to 
individual  differences  in  nervous  structure.  Again,  in 
man  those  complex  hereditary  reactions  which  we  term 
"instincts"  pass  through  the  higher  nervous  centers  which 
are  concerned  with  consciousness,  and  hence  are  more  or 
less  subject  to  those  higher  controls  over  behavior  -.vhich 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        63 

we  term  "feeling"  and  "intelligence."  Finally,  as  the 
instincts  get  their  development  only  through  appropriate 
stimuli  in  the  environment,  the  more  artificial  environment 
of  man  may  greatly  influence  their  expression  or  even 
repress  them  altogether.  For  all  of  these  reasons  those 
activities  which  predominantly  spring  from  instinct  are 
more  modificable  and  alterable  in  man  through  experience 
than  in  any  other  animal. 

Nevertheless,  because  the  human  instincts  furnish  the 
nucleus  of  activities  by  which  the  individual  begins  to 
master  his  world,  and  because  all  later  adaptations  are 
more  or  less  influenced  by  these  original  reactions,  they 
are  exceedingly  important  as  the  basis  of  man's  mental 
and  social  life.  They  are  the  activities  which  do  not  need 
to  be  learned,  but  are  in  us  apart  from  training  and  ex- 
perience by  virtue  of  our  human  heredity. 

The  instincts  are  the  origin  of  certain  simpler  relations 
between  individuals  and  so  furnish  the  beginnings  of 
social  organization.  This  may  be  seen  in  such  typical 
human  instincts  as  sexual  and  parental  love.  Other  typi- 
cal instincts  usually  recognized  by  psychologists  are  gre- 
gariousness,  imitativeness,  constructiveness,  acquisitive- 
ness, self-assertion,  combativeness,  and  curiosity.  All  of 
these  are  sufficiently  in  evidence  in  human  society.  It 
should  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  there  is  no  single 
social  instinct  which  can  be  invoked  to  explain  the  origin, 
much  less  the  development,  of  man's  social  life,  since  many 
instincts  must  have  been  concerned  in  bringing  and  keep- 
ing individuals  together  even  in  the  primitive  forms  of 
association.  Nevertheless,  sociability  itself  must  be  con- 
sidered an  instinctive  rather  than  an  acquired  trait.  Hu- 


64        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

man  society,  then,  is  rooted  in  human  instincts,  and  the 
instincts  are  at  the  basis  of  man's  social  as  well  as  of  his 
mental  life. 

Accordingly,  we  must  always  seek  in  sociology  beneath 
habits,  customs,  and  traditions  in  society  the  original 
instinctive  impulses  and  reactions  of  individuals.  Since 
these  represent  the  innate  or  biological  element,  and 
furnish  the  original  basis  for  the  relationships  of  individu- 
als, they  may  well  be  characterized  as  the  primary  social 
forces.  No  program  of  social  reconstruction  can  possibly 
succeed  which  does  not  take  into  consideration  these 
original  proclivities  of  human  nature;  on  the  other  hand, 
when  their  control  is  understood,  they  will  present  no 
insuperable  obstacle  to  any  rational  program  of  social 
reconstruction.  Hence  the  guidance  and  control  of  these 
native  reactions  through  the  education  of  the  individual 
and  through  the  appropriate  organization  of  social  life 
is  one  of  the  great  practical  problems  of  human  society. 

Acquired  Habits.  —  Instincts  are  inborn,  while  habits 
are  acquired.  Instincts  might  perhaps  be  termed  race 
habits,  while  habits  in  the  strict  sense  are  modifications 
of  inherent  activities  acquired  by  individuals  or  groups  of 
individuals  during  their  lifetime.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  instinctive  reactions  become  modified  by  experience; 
that  is,  the  hereditary  tendencies  of  the  individual  are 
adapted  to  new  situations  and  new  ways  of  reacting  are 
thus  acquired.  These  new  ways  of  reacting,  when  they 
no  longer  need  attention  and  drop  more  or  less  out  of 
consciousness,  become  habits  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word. 
The  earlier  formed  habits  become,  of  course,  the  basis 
for  later  ones  through  their  modification  by  adaptation, 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        6$ 

just  as  instinctive  reactions  are  modified.  Thus  are  built 
up  the  countless  habits  of  the  mature  individual.  This 
process  of  building  up  habits  out  of  instincts,  or  previously 
formed  habits,  is  from  a  psychological  standpoint  the 
essence  of  mental  growth  both  in  the  individual  and  in 
society.  Acquired  habits  in  time  come  to  be  second  na- 
ture, as  we  say,  and  are  not  less  powerful  in  determining 
conduct  than  the  original  instinctive  reactions.  This  is 
as  true  of  society  as  it  is  of  the  individual. 

Acquired  habit,  therefore,  plays  a  great  part  in  human 
society.  The  character  of  the  adult  individual  is  very 
largely  the  result  of  the  habits  acquired  through  early 
environment  and  education.  The  organization  of  society 
is  also  at  any  given  time  almost  wholly  the  result  of  habit; 
for  social  organization  is  the  whole  mass  of  reciprocal 
adjustments  which  individuals  of  a  group  maintain  among 
themselves,  and  these  are  largely  habitual.  The  psy- 
chological fact  of  habit  is  thus  the  main  carrier  of  all  those 
forms  of  social  life  and  organization  which  rise  above  the 
merely  instinctive  level. 

Thus  habit  forms  the  chief  raw  material  for  cultural 
evolution.  Man's  capacity  to  acquire  an  indefinite  number 
of  habits  made  it  possible  for  him  to  take  on  civilization 
through  building  up  social  usages,  customs,  traditions,  and 
institutions.  All  of  these  are  forms  of  habit  with  varying 
degrees  of  social  sanction  attached  to  them.  Usages,  or 
"folkways,"  are  simply  the  similar  habits  of  a  group  of 
people,  usually  handed  down  from  generation  to  generation. 
The  "mores,"  or  customs,  of  a  people  are  the  folkways  which 
have  been  reflected  upon  and  sanctioned  by  the  group,  and 
hence  set  up  as  standards.  Institutions  are  simply  more 


66        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

highly  developed  and  systematized,  more  definitely  sanc- 
tioned and  established  social  habits;  while  social  traditions 
are  habitual  ways  of  thinking  and  feeling  handed  down 
from  generation  to  generation.  Thus  the  social  order  at 
any  given  time  is  largely  a  matter  of  habit,  and  the  prob- 
lem of  its  reconstruction  is  the  problem  of  building  up 
new  habits  adapted  to  new  life  conditions  to  replace  old 
habits  which  are  no  longer  adapted. 

The  whole  mental  and  social  life  of  man  centers  about 
the  psychological  facts  of  habit  and  adaptation.  If  we 
lived  in  a  slowly  changing  world,  we  should  need  no  other 
controls  over  activity  than  instinct  and  habit;  but  inas- 
much as  we  live  in  a  rapidly  changing  world  we  need  the 
higher,  inner  forms  of  control  over  behavior  which  we  call 
"feeling,"  "intelligence,"  and  "rationality." 

Feeling.  —  By  feeling  we  mean  the  agreeable  or  dis- 
agreeable tone  which  accompanies  conscious  states.  It  is 
practically  synonymous  with  pleasure  and  pain,  using  those 
words  in  a  broad  way.  Feeling,  then,  is  the  "me-side"  of 
activity,  or,  more  accurately,  it  is  the  subjective  valuation 
wliich  the  organism  gives  to  an  activity.  When  the  activity 
is  one  which  has  on  the  whole  in  the  past  history  of  the 
organism  been  advantageous  the  resulting  feeling  is  usually 
pleasurable.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  activity  is  one 
which  has  been  disadvantageous,  the  feeling  is  disagreeable 
or  painful. 

Feeling,  because  it  is  the  me-side  of  activity,  is  subject 
to  all  the  variations  to  which  the  individual  organism  is 
subject.  Conditions  of  health,  habit,  and  personal  idiosyn- 
crasies often  make  that  which  is  agreeable  to  one  person 
disagreeable  to  another.  Hence,  pleasure  and  pain  are  not 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        67 

good  guides  as  to  the  lightness  or  wrongness  of  actions. 
The  majority  of  our  feelings  are  attached  to  our  instincts 
in  the  forms  of  emotions.  They  powerfully  reenforce,  there- 
fore, the  instinctive  activities.  Now,  the  instincts,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  are  the  result  of  selection  in  the 
past  history  of  the  species.  They  and  the  feelings  at-, 
tached  to  them,  or  the  emotions,  are  not  therefore  good 
guides  in  the  complex  life  of  the  present.  The  instincts, 
and  their  correlated  emotions,  need,  therefore,  to  be  con- 
trolled and  guided  by  the  reason.  They  are,  however, 
rough  monitors  which  indicate  to  us  without  the  labor 
of  thought  the  organically  advantageous  or  disadvanta- 
geous. 

A  mistake  of  the  psychology  of  the  early  part  of  the 
nineteenth  century  was  its  claim  that  pleasure  and  pain  are 
the  sole  springs  of  action.  But,  as  we  have  seen,  feeling 
is  the  accompaniment  and  not  the  antecedent  of  activity. 
Feeling  does,  however,  modify  activity.  If  the  feeling  tone 
raised  by  the  activity  is  pleasureable,  the  activity  is  reen- 
forced,  but  if  it  is  disagreeable  or  painful,  the  activity  tends 
to  be  inhibited.  This  is,  however,  something  very  different 
from  saying  that  pleasure  and  pain  are  the  sole  sources  of 
activity. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  evident  that  in  securing  changes  in 
activities  in  human  society  it  is  well  if  possible  to  enlist  the 
feelings  on  the  side  of  those  changes.  This  can  best  be  done 
by  connecting  the  change  with  some  instinctive  impulse. 
Now,  the  instinctive  impulses  which  are  most  favorable 
to  social  change  are  the  altruistic  or  sympathetic  impulses. 
Hence  it  is  that  the  sympathetic  feelings  can  usually  be 
appealed  to  in  bringing  about  any  reform  or  progressive 


68        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

change  in  society.  Sympathy,  by  which  we  mean  fellow 
feeling,  or  altruistic  feeling,  is,  therefore,  the  aspect  of 
feeling  which  is  most  socialized,  and  has  most  to  do  in 
furthering  social  reforms  and  the  reconstruction  of  civiliza- 
tion upon  a  basis  of  justice  and  humanity.  The  appeal 
to  feeling  is  justifiable  in  society,  therefore,  only  when  it  is 
an  appeal  to  our  sympathetic  or  altruistic  feelings,  and 
even  these  need  the  control  of  our  intelligence.  Neverthe- 
less, sympathetic  or  altruistic  feeling,  because  it  tends  to 
harmonize  individuals  in  their  relations  and  to  establish 
mutual  good  will,  must  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  founda- 
tions of  higher  civilization. 

Intelligence.  —  Intelligence  is  the  objective,  cognitive 
side  of  the  mind  which  has  to  do  especially  with  the  adapta- 
tion of  the  activities  of  the  organism  to  the  environment. 
Instinct  and  feeling  have,  as  we  have  seen,  chiefly  refer- 
ence to  the  organism  and  its  past  environment,  while  in- 
telligence on  the  other  hand  is  turned  outward  toward  the 
rest  of  the  universe,  and  so  stands  more  for  the  present  and 
the  future.  It  functions  to  evaluate  and  control  activities 
with  reference  to  the  environment.  Knowledge,  ideas, 
values,  in  other  words,  play  the  decisive  role  in  adapting 
the  organism  to  its  environment. 

It  is  probable  that  intelligence  was  developed  as  an  aid 
in  carrying  out  the  instincts  and  in  satisfying  the  demands 
of  feeling.  Nevertheless,  in  man  it  can  and  does  act  in- 
dependently of  these.  The  instincts  and  feelings,  as  we 
have  already  seen,  are  very  insufficient  guides  in  the  com- 
plex social  life  of  the  present.  Hence,  the  need  of  a  higher 
instrument  of  adaptation  than  that  which  instinct  or  feeling 
can  furnish.  Therefore  nature  has  developed  in  man  the 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        69 

intellect,  and  the  chief  distinction  between  man  and  the 
lower  animals  is  that  he  has  passed  through  many  more 
stages  in  intellectual  evolution.  Man's  intellect  has  been 
developed,  in  other  words,  to  control  activities  in  individual 
and  collective  life  which  cannot  be  controlled  in  any  other 
way.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  man  has  developed  a  higher 
phase  of  intelligence  which  no  other  animal  possesses,  which 
we  call  the  "reason." 

Rationality.  —  The  reason,  or  rationality,  is  that  phase 
of  mind  which  is  the  supreme  device  for  controlling  activity 
and  modifying  the  environment.  The  power  of  abstract 
thought,  of  calculation  or  reasoning,  has  enabled  man  to 
build  up  a  distinctive  social  life,  characterized  by  "culture," 
or  "civilization."  Language,  religion,  government,  science, 
morality,  and  education,  all  these  distinctive  features  of 
human  society,  as  well  as  many  others,  have  depended  for 
their  development  upon  this  evolution  of  man's  intellectual 
nature.  While  it  is  a  mistake  to  search  for  primitive  social 
origins  in  man's  reason,  or  to  think  that  human  society  is 
mainly  a  product  of  reflective  thought,  yet  later  social  devel- 
opments and  movements  take  on  more  and  more  a  rational 
character.  Reflective  thought,  which  probably  played  such 
an  insignificant  part  in  primitive  society,  becomes  in  the 
highest  social  development  the  decisive  element,  because 
upon  it  depends  the  control,  not  only  of  the  forces  of  phys- 
ical nature,  but  also  of  the  feelings  and  impulses  of  human 
nature. 

All  this  is  illustrated  by  the  part  which  invention  and 
discovery  have  played  in  social  development.  Invention 
and  discovery  hardly  exist  below  the  human  level,  hence 
animal  societies  are  not  progressive.  On  the  other  hand, 


70        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

civilization  in  human  societies  has  been  built  up  largely 
through  invention  and  discovery.  The  invention  of  tools, 
weapons,  labor  saving  devices,  the  improvements  in  com- 
munication and  transportation,  along  with  scientific  dis- 
covery of  the  properties  and  nature  of  things,  have  been  the 
material  means  by  which  human  progress  has  been  effected. 
But  it  should  be  remembered  that  invention  is  not  confined 
,  to  the  putting  together  of  material  forces  in  new  ways,  nor 
'  is  discovery  confined  to  the  understanding  of  the  workings 
of  physical  nature.  Quite  as  important  phases  of  invention 
and  discovery  have  been  the  making  of  new  institutions 
and  forms  of  association,  the  discovery  of  new  possibilities 
in  human  living,  and  especially  the  development  of  social 
standards  by  which  individual  and  social  activities  have 
been  standardized  and  controlled.  Moral  development  in 
human  society  has  depended,  therefore,  very  largely  upon 
intellectual  processes.  .Moral  ideas  and  ideals  especially 
have  exerted  a  powerful  influence  on  social  relationships. 
Since  new  ideas  are  the  creation  of  exceptional  minds,  and, 
since  they  may  become  powerful  instruments  in  social  prog- 
ress, it  is  evident  that  the  individual  has  also  his  place  as  a 
factor  in  social  evolution. 

In  the  higher  stages  of  social  development,  therefore, 
the  human  reason  plays  an  increasingly  important  part. 
When  we  remember  that  all  the  achievements  of  science, 
all  of  the  conquests  of  the  practical  arts,  all  man's  mastery 
over  nature  and  self,  are  products  of  his  reason,  we  can 
scarcely  deny  the  very  large  part  which  must  be  assigned 
to  the  intellect  in  human  social  evolution  and  progress. 
Hope  for  the  social  future,  moreover,  manifestly  lies  in 
the  possibility  of  the  increasing  dominance  of  intelligence 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        71 

in  our  social  life.  Mastery  over  the  conditions  of  our 
social  existence  can  come  only  through  increasing  knowl- 
edge. 

This  means,  in  effect,  that  only  science  is  adequate 
to  guide  the  reconstruction  of  our  social  life.  In  proportion 
as  we  build  our  social  life  upon  ascertained  facts  and  laws 
of  human  living  together,  we  shall  be  successful;  in  pro- 
portion as  we  build  upon  mere  emotionalism,  blind  tradi- 
tion, or  party  prejudices,  we  shall  fail.  Only  in  the  de- 
velopment and  maintenance  of  the  rational  level  of  behavior 
lie  the  safety  and  security  of  civilization. 

The  Social  Character  of  Mind.  —  It  is  evident  from 
what  has  been  said  that  the  mind  as  a  whole  enters  as  an 
active  factor  into  our  social  life.  The  forces  at  work  in 
human  social  relationships  consist  not  simply  of  feeling 
elements,  such  as  desire,  but  also  of  all  the  impulses  and 
intellectual  elements  which  go  to  make  up  the  mental 
life  of  the  individual.  Beyond  this,  of  course,  are  also  the 
influence  of  physical  factors,  such  as  heredity,  variation, 
and  natural  selection,  and  back  of  these  are  the  conditions 
of  the  physical  environment,  such  as  climate,  soil,  food, 
and  geographical  conditions.  The  physical  factors,  how- 
ever, manifest  themselves  chiefly  in  our  social  life  through 
the  psychological  elements  of  impulse,  feeling,  and  intelli- 
gence. The  main  thing  for  the  elementary  student  of 
sociology  to  note  is  that  the  factors  at  work  in  our  social 
life  are  very  complex,  and  that  it  is  impossible  to  interpret 
human  society  aright  through  paying  attention  to  only 
one  of  these.  Our  views  of  the  human  social  life  must  be 
large  enough,  in  other  words,  to  include  the  working  of 
all  possible  factors.  The  view  of  society  which  will  be 


72        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

presented  in  this  book,  therefore,  is  a  synthetic  one  as 
opposed  to  the  many  one-sided  theories  which  are  now 
prevalent  regarding  human  institutions. 

Such  a  view  we  get  even  from  a  study  of  the  individual 
mind,  because  such  study  shows  that  human  consciousness 
is  very  largely  a  reflection  of  the  complex  social  medium 
in  which  it  has  been  developed  and  that  the  mind  itself 
is  therefore  socially  conditioned  in  all  of  its  aspects.  This 
is  true  even  of  the  instincts  and  emotions  with  which  we 
are  equipped  by  heredity,  because  careful  study  of  human 
instincts  shows  that  they  presuppose  a  social  medium 
for  their  evolution.  Even  our  most  abstract  thought  is 
in  the  nature  of  conversation,  and  therefore  presupposes 
mental  interaction,  or  society.  Man's  mental  and  social 
life  are,  therefore,  largely  one. 

Mental  interaction,  intercommunication,  is  as  necessary 
for  the  mind  as  for  social  life.  If  mind  is  the  chief  organ 
of  adaptation  for  individuals,  so  intercommunication  is  the 
means  of  adjustment  between  individual  minds.  The 
whole  mental  and  social  life,  therefore,  grows  together. 
Through  intercommunication  society  carries  on  a  collective 
mental  life,  and  the  individual  mind  gets  its  development 
largely  by  participating  therein. 

These  statements  must  not  be  interpreted  to  mean  that 
the  individual's  mental  life  is  wholly  submerged  in  that 
of  his  group.  Biological  variation  and  the  self-active 
character  of  the  individual  prevent  this.  So  far  as  science 
can  discover  there  is  no  complete  social  determinism  of 
individual  consciousness  and  behavior.  While  the  indi- 
vidual gets  his  development,  both  physical  and  psychical, 
in  the  main,  from  his  connection  with  a  larger  life,  the 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        73 

life  of  his  species  and  of  his  group,  this  does  not  prevent 
him  from  developing  variations  of  his  own,  both  physically 
and  mentally.  If  this  were  not  so,  social  progress  would 
be  impossible,  save  through  the  action  of  natural  selection 
upon  groups.  As  it  is,  the  individual's  variations,  origi- 
nalities, and  inventions  may  be  taken  up  by  the  group 
through  suggestion  and  imitation  and  become  the  acquired 
habits  of  the  whole  group.  Thus  the  individual  reacts 
upon  his  group.  Human  society  is,  then,  not  a  simple 
mass,  but  is  made  up  of  relatively  independent,  autono- 
mous individuals.  The  key  to  its  activities  is  not,  there- 
fore, in  some  principle  which  simply  applies  to  the  mass 
as  a  whole,  but  rather  in  the  laws  and  principles  of  indi- 
vidual behavior. 

The  Active  Factors  in  Association.  —  We  may  now 
briefly  summarize  what  is  said  in  this  and  in  the  preceding 
chapter  about  the  active  factors,  or  forces,  which  make 
human  society  what  it  is.  We  have  paid  no  especial  at- 
tention to  the  forces  of  the  geographic  environment,  because 
they  work  in  human  society  chiefly  through  natural  selec- 
tion and  external  stimuli.  Some  sociologists  have  made 
the  mistake  of  representing  the  geographic  factors  of 
climate,  soil,  etc.,  as  directly  at  work  in  the  social  life;  but 
this  is  rarely  the  case.  Usually  they  affect  social  life  only 
indirectly  as  they  affect  the  impulses,  feelings,  and  ideas 
of  individuals  and  through  acting  as  selective  agencies  in 
human  life.  Nevertheless,  for  this  very  reason,  we  must 
include  them  among  the  original  active  factors  in  the 
social  life  of  man. 

As  original  active  factors  in  human  association,  we  must, 
then,  recognize  the  following: 


74        MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS 

I.  The  physical  factors: 

(a)  Geographic  environment,  including  climate,  food,  soil,  natural 

resources,  topography,  etc. 

(b)  Biological  forces,  heredity,  variation,  selection,  etc. 

II.  The  psychical  factors: 

(a)  Impulses,  both  hereditary  (instinctive)  and  acquired  (habitual). 

(b)  Feelings,  both  hereditary  (emotions)  and  acquired  (habitual), 
(d)  Intellectual    elements,    including    sensation,    perception,    and 

ideation  (conception,  imagination,  reasoning,  etc.). 

Derived,  complex  social  factors,  compounded  out  of 
these  simple  original  factors,  are  very  numerous  and  have 
never  been  very  satisfactorily  classified,  though  many 
attempts  have  been  made.  Such  are  beliefs,  desires, 
interests,  and  values,  which  are  compounds  of  varying 
proportions  made  up  of  impulses,  feelings,  and  intellectual 
elements.  Their  great  importance  in  the  social  life  will 
be  manifest  as  we  take  up  different  problems.  Such  are 
also  economic  goods  and  the  technology  of  civilization, 
such  as  roads,  houses,  tools,  and  machinery.  These  may  be 
regarded  as  modifications  of  the  geographic  environment, 
effected  by  man's  operations  upon  physical  nature.  We 
shall  have  occasion  to  see  how  these  affect  every  social 
problem  directly  or  indirectly.  Finally  there  are  the 
institutions  of  society,  such  as  the  family,  government, 
law,  morality,  religion,  and  education.  While  these  are 
very  complex  in  origin,  they  react  upon  society.  They 
must  also,  accordingly,  be  regarded  as  active  factors  in 
the  social  life  of  man. 

Summary.  —  Social  life  is  made  up  of  adaptations 
between  individuals,  of  coadaptations  of  individuals  to 
one  another.  But  the  master  device  for  controlling  the 
complex  adaptations  of  life  is  the  mind;  hence  mind  is  also 


MODERN  PSYCHOLOGY  UPON  SOCIAL  PROBLEMS        75 

the  chief  instrument  for  maintaining  and  perfecting  that 
complex  of  adaptations  between  individuals  which  is  our 
social  life.  Social  life  has  been  created  by  mind,  and  in 
man  is  largely  an  intermental  life.  Intercommunication 
is  the  chief  means  of  making  interadjustments  between 
individuals,  just  as  the  mind  is  the  chief  organ  of  adapta- 
tion in  the  individual.  Hence  all  phases  of  social  and 
mental  life  are  intertwined.  Back  of  these,  however,  we 
must  recognize  the  physical  and  biological  factors.  But 
a  sociology  which  is  to  be  put  to  practical  use  must  show 
the  significance  of  the  various  mental  factors  for  our  social 
life;  for  it  is  these  factors  which  can  be  most  easily  modi- 
fied and  controlled. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

COOLEY,  Social  Organization,  Chaps.  I-IL 

EIXWOOD,  Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  Chap.  III. 

McDouGAix,  Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  Chaps.  I-IV. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

BOGARDUS,  Essentials  of  Social  Psychology,  Chaps.  I-IV. 
COOLEY,  Human  Nature  and  the  Social  Order,  Chaps.  I-VT. 
HOBHOCSE,  Mind  in  Evolution,  Revised  Edition,  Chaps.  I-VL 
JAMES,  Psychology,  Briefer  Course,  Chaps.  X,  XXV. 
Ross,  Social  Psychology. 
THORN-DIKE,  Elements  of  Psychology,  Part  III. 
THORN-DIKE,  The  Original  Nature  of  Man,  Chaps.  I-XL 
TROTTER,  Instincts  of  the  Herd  in  Peace  and  War,  pp.  1-65. 
WAILAS,  The  Great  Society,  Chaps.  H-XL 


\ 


CHAPTER  IV 

PRIMARY    GROUPS:  THE    FUNCTION    OF    THE    FAMILY    IN 
HUMAN  SOCIETY 

Forms  of  Association.  —  We  may  conveniently  dis- 
tinguish between  different  types  of  social  groups  or  forms 
of  association.  There  is  first  of  all  the  distinction  between 
temporary  and  permanent  groups.  It  is  evident  that  the 
permanent  groups  are  more  important  both  practically 
and  for  the  purposes  of  scientific  study.  The  temporary 
groups,  moreover,  are  usually  parts  of  larger  permanent 
groups. 

Another  distinction  which  we  may  make  is  that  between 
voluntary,  purposive  groups  and  involuntary,  genetic  groups. 
The  former  are  found  only  in  human  society  and  are  asso- 
ciations of  persons  for  special  purposes.  Such  are  parties, 
religious  sects,  trade  unions,  industrial  corporations, 
clubs,  and  the  like.  The  latter  are  natural  groupings, 
such  as  the  family,  the  neighborhood,  the  city,  the  state 
or  province,  and  the  nation.  They  may  be,  and  usually 
are,  called  communities,  since  they  are  composed  of  in- 
dividuals who  carry  on  all  phases  of  a  common  life.  Vol- 
untary, purposive  associations  always  exist  within  some 
community,  whether  large  or  small.  Groups  which  we 
call  "communities"  are,  therefore,  more  embracing,  more 
stable,  less  artificial  and  specialized  than  purely  voluntary 
groups.  For  this  reason  communities  are  of  more  interest 
to  the  sociologist  than  specialized  voluntary  groups,  and 

76 


PRIMARY  GROUPS  77 

sociology  is  In  a  peculiar  sense  a  study  of  the  problems 
of  community  life. 

A  still  more  important  distinction  between  groups  for 
sociological  purposes  is  that  between  primary  and  secondary 
groups.  Primary  groups  are  those  which  involve  more  or 
less  intimate,  face-to-face,  personal  relations.  Such  are 
the  family,  the  neighborhood,  and  the  play  group.  Sec- 
ondary groups,  on  the  other  hand,  are  those  which  do  not 
necessarily  involve  face-to-face  association.  Such  are  the 
state,  the  nation,  the  political  party,  and  the  religious 
sect.  They  are  secondary  because  they  are  not  original 
but  are  the  creations  of  high  civilization. 

Primary  groups,  on  the  other  hand,  are  found  in  all 
stages  of  human  development.  They  are  of  most  interest 
sociologically,  because  they  exhibit  social  life  at  its  maxi- 
mum intensity,  and  because  they  are  the  bearers  of  the 
most  vital  elements  in  social  life,  especially  the  traditions 
of  civilization. 

Another  very  important  distinction  for  sociological 
purposes  among  the  forms  of  human  association  is  that 
between  the  sanctioned,  or  institutional,  and  the  unsanc- 
tioned,  or  non-institutional,  forms.  Those  groupings  and 
relations  of  individuals  which  have  been  reflected  upon, 
approved,  and  established,  or  instituted,  by  a  large  com- 
munity we  call  institutions.  Such  are  the  family,  property, 
the  state,  the  church,  and  the  school.  As  institutions  are 
dependent  on  reflective  thought  and  organized  authority, 
they  are  not  found,  in  the  strict  sense,  below  the  human 
level.  Then*  extreme  importance  in  human  society  is 
indicated  by  the  fact  that  they  are  forms  of  association 
which  have  been  reflected  upon,  sanctioned,  and  estab- 


78  PRIMARY  GROUPS 

lished  by  human  communities.     They  embody  the  chief 
consciously  recognized  values  in  the  social  life.     Hence 

^     sociology  is  largely  a  study  of  institutions  in  their  relations 
to  the  social  life. 

To  begin  our  study  of  sociology  it  is  evident  that  we 
should  have,  if  possible,  a  more  or  lesVpermanent,  natural, 
group  which  is  at  the  same  time  both  a  primary  group 
and  an  institution.^  There  is  one  such  group  in  human 
society  —  the  family^  It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  select 
the  family  as  the  group  with  which  to  begin  our  study  of 
the  concrete  problems  of  human  society  —  because  it 
illustrates  in  a  simple  way  so  many  phases  of  social  life. 

.jj-Many  sociologists  would  begin  with  some  other  social 
group,  such  as  the  nation  or  the  neighborhood;  but  the 
nation  is  not  a  primary  group  and  is  too  large  and  complex 
to  begin  with,  while  the  neighborhood  is  not  institutional- 
ized a.nd  fails  also  to  illustrate  clearly  the  problems  of 
social  origin  and  development.  The  study  of  the  family, 
on  the  other  hand,  furnishes  clear  illustration  of  the  princi- 
ples and  forces  involved  in  social  origins,  social  develop- 
ment, and  social  organization.  But  before  we  consider 
the  family  as  a  human  institution,  let  us  note  the  social 
function  of  primary  groups  in  general. 

The  Social  Function  of  Primary  Groups.  —  The  in- 
timate, face-to-face  groups  of  men  have  always  been  the 
chief  medium  for  the  development  of  human  social  life; 
for  in  them  social  life  is  most  vividly  realized.  They  form 
the  natural  environment  for  the  development  of  the  social 
traits  of  the  individual.  Psychologically  the  stimulus  of 
the  presence  of  other  individuals  seems  necessary  for  the 
development  of  those  instincts,  habits,  feelings,  ideas,  and 


PRIMARY  GROUPS  79 

standards  which  make  for  social  solidarity.     Hence  the 
primary  groups  are  the  chief  means  for  socializing  the 

individual. 

/ 

The  face-to-face  association  of  primary  gpbups,  more- 
over, is  the  chief  means  of  preserving  and  passing  along 
social  tradition  /-  that  is,  the  knowledge,  ideas,  and  values 
handed  down  from  the  past.  While  civilized  society  has 
devised  specialized  institutions  for  preserving  and  trans- 
mitting social  tradition,  such  as  schools,  libraries,  and 
museums,  yet  the  continuity  of  the  social  life  on  its  psychic 
side  would  be  very  imperfect  if  society  had  to  depend  on 
such  specialized  institutions.  The  primary  groups  are 
the  chief  bearers  of  social  tradition  because  they  furnish 
the  environment  of  the  child  from  its  earliest  years.  In 
them  the  child  learns  his  language,  and  with  his  language 
he  gets  the  fundamental  knowledge,  beliefs,  and  standards 
of  his  civilization.  Moreover,  the  meaning  of  essential 
traditions  is  clearer  in  these  groups  to  the  young,  because 
they  are  accompanied  usually  by  the  actual  behavior 
correlated  with  the  traditions.  In  other  words,  primary  y 
groups  are  also  the  main  carriers  of  custom,  in  the  sense 
of  sanctioned  habits  of  behavior.  A  certain  tradition 
regarding  government  or  morality,  for  example,  when 
accompanied  by  observable  actions,  can  be  gotten  by  the 
child  better  than  he  can  get  it  from  the  printed  page  or 
even  the  spoken  word. 

The  chief  importance  of  primary  groups  in  our  social 
life,  however,  is  that  they  are  the  source  of  primary  social 
ideals.1^  They  furnish  the  "patterns"  which  we  attempt  to 
realize  in  our  social  life  in  general.  Thus  Professor  Cooley 
says  we  get  our  notions  of  love,  freedom,  justice,  and  the 


80  PRIMARY  GROUPS 

like  from  such  simple  and  widespread  forms  of  society, 
since  "in  these  relations  mankind  realizes  itself,  gratifies 
its  primary  needs,  in  a  fairly  satisfactory  manner,  and 
from  the  experience  forms  standards  of  what  it  is  to  expect 
from  more  elaborate  association."  \He  adds  that  the  ideals 
of  both  democracy  and  Christianity  have  sprung  naturally 

\  from  the  primary  groups.  The  very  ideal  of  social  solidarity 
itself  comes  from  the  unity  experienced  in  such  groups. 

Now,  all  progress  in  civilization  is  essentially  a  following 
out  and  development  of  "patterns."  In  the  material 
realm,  for  example,  we  have  been  able  to  develop  the  steam 
engine  and  the  flying  machine  by  following  out  and  im- 
proving certain  patterns.  So  in  social  relations  we  get  our 
primary  patterns  from  the  primary  groups,  and  then  strive 

^  to  realize  them  in  the  wider  social  life.  Hence  the  great 
significance  of  these  groups  for  understanding  the  whole 
development  of  human  society  and  of  civilization. 

The  Family  as  a  Primary  Group.  —  The  family  is  the 
simplest  group  in  human  society  capable  of  maintaining 
itself.  It  is  in  an  especial  sense,  therefore,  the  primary  social 
group.  As  its  members,  husband  and  wife,  parents  and 
children,  have  then*  places  largely  fixed  in  the  group  by 
their  organic  natures  and  relations,  the  family  seems  to 
be  almost  as  much  a  biological  structure  as  a  social  group. 
For  this  reason  it  presents  especially  clearly  the  biolog- 
ical forces  operating  in  our  social  life.  The  family  is 
not  a  product  of  other  forms  of  association,  but  rather 
furnishes  the  possibilities  of  these.  Containing  as  it  does 
both  sexes  and  all  ages,  it  is  not  only  capable  of  reproducing 
itself  and  society,  but  of  illustrating  and  developing  practi- 
cally all  essential  human  relationships.  Thus  the  relations 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  8r 

of  superiority,  subordination,  and  equality,  which  enter  so 
largely  into  all  social  organization,  are  illustrated  in  the 
family  in  the  relations  of  parents  to  children,  of  children 
to  parents,  of  parents  to  each  other,  and  of  children  to  one 
another.  Indeed,  all  essential  relations  of  social  niter- 
dependence  are  so  fully  illustrated  in  the  family  that  it  has 
often  been  justly  called  "  society,  j^miniature." 

For  this  reason  the  work  of  the  family  in  the  social  life 
has  often  been  compared  to  that  of  the  cell  in  the  biological 
organism.  Without  pushing  this  analogy,  however,  it  is 
evident  that  families  do  enter  very  largely  as  units  into  our 
social  and  industrial  life,  and  we  shall  see  that  the  char- 
acter of  our  social  life  is  very  largely  determined  by  the  * 
functioning  of  the  family.  The  full  evidence  for  this  con- 
clusion can  be  given  only  through  the  consideration  of  the 
origin,  historical  development,  and  present  condition  of  the 
family;  but  a  brief  survey  of  the  functions  of  the  family 
in  human  society  will  suffice  to  show  it  to  be  the  most  im- 
portant of  human  institutions.  We  shall  consider  these 
functions  under  three  heads. 

The  Primary  Function  of  the  Family  is  continuing  the 
life  of  the  species;  that  is,  the  primary  function  of  the 
family  is  reproduction  in  the  sense  of  the  birth  and  rearing 
of  children.  While  other  functions  of  the  family  have  been 
delegated  in  a  large  measure  to  other  social  institutions, 
it  is  manifest  that  this  function  cannot  be  so  delegated. 
We  know  of  no  human  society  in  which  the  birth  and  rear- 
ing of  children  has  not  been  the  essential  function  of  the 
family.  In  present  society,  at  least,  the  stream  of  life  must 
flow  through  the  family.  The  constitution  of  the  family, 
therefore,  determines  the  heredity  of  the  child  as  well  as 

rV^0:' 

&       \ 


- 

82  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY 

its  care  and  upbringing.  If  the  family  performed  no  other 
function  than  this  of  producing  the  new  individuals  of 
society  and  furnishing  them  physical  care  and  nurture  until 
maturity  is  reached,  it  would  still  be  the  most  important 
of  all  human  institutions.  *  From  a  sociological  point  of 
view  the  childless  family  must  be  judged  a  failure.  While 
the  childless  family  may  be  of  social  utility  to  the  individuals 
that  form  it,  nevertheless  from  the  point  of  view  of  society 
such  a  family  has  failed  to  perform  its  most  important 
function  and  must  be  considered,  therefore,  to  that  extent 
socially  a  failure. 

The  Function  of  the  Family  in  Conserving  Social  Pos- 
sessions. —  The  family  is  still  the  chief  institution  in  society 
for  transmitting  from  one  generation  to  another  social  pos- 
sessions of  all  sorts,  and,  therefore,  of  conserving  the  social 
order.  Property  in  the  form  of  land  or  houses  or  personal 
property,  society  permits  the  family  to  pass  along  from  gen- 
eration to  generation.  Even  the  material  equipment  for 
industry,  that  is,  capital,  is  so  transmitted  in  present  society. 
Thus  under  present  conditions  the  child  gets  its  material 
possessions,  its  economic  equipment,  for  its  start  in  life 
mainly  from  its  family  group.  While  this  transmission  by 
the  family  of  the  material  goods  of  society  from  one  genera- 
tion to  another  is  obviously  of  the  highest  social  importance, 
even  more  important  is  its  function  of  transmitting  the 
spiritual  possessions  of  the  race.  The  family  is  the  chief 
institutional  vehicle  of  social  tradition,  because  the  child 
gets  its  language  mainly  in  the  family;  and  in  social  tradi- 
tion is  embodied  all  the  beliefs,  standards,  and  values  of 
civilization  regarding  industry,  government,  law,  religion, 
morality,  the  family,  and  general  social  life. 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  83 

i/ 

The  Family  as  a  School.  So  much  does  the  child  get  his 
essential  social  traditions  from  the  family,  that  many  edu- 
cators hold  that  the  most  essential  things  in  social  educa- 
tion can  never  be  given  in  the  public  schools,  but  must  be 
given  in  the  home.-  This  is  especially  true  of  religious  and 
moral  instruction.  The  real  foundations  of  moral  character 
are  laid  while  the  child  is  yet  of  tender  age  in  the  family 
circle.  In  the  family  the  child  first  learns  the  meaning  of 
authority,  obedience,  loyalty,  love,  service,  and  all  the 
human  virtues.  If  the  child  fails  to  get  proper  moral  stand- 
ards and  ideals  from  his  family  life,  he  gets  them  with 
greater  difficulty,  if  at  all,  from  society  later.  The  same 
is  true  regarding  political  ideas  and  standards.  If  the 
child  fails  to  learn  in  his  family  life  loyalty  to  his  country, 
respect  for  law,  and  the  ideals  of  good  citizenship,  there 
are  good  prospects  of  his  being  numbered  among  the  law- 
less or  unpatriotic  elements  of  society  later.  Even  habits.-- 
of  work  must  be  learned  by  the  child  largely  in  the  family. 
Thus  the  rudiments  of  morality,  of  religion,  of  govern- 
ment, of  law,  and  even  of  industry  are  transmitted  in  the 
family  and  learned  by  the  child  in  his  family  group. 

The  family,  in  brief,  furnishes  the  immediate  environ- 
ment of  the  child  of  tender  age.  Thus  it  is  charged  by  so-  V 
ciety  not  only  with  producing  its  new  individuals  but  with 
training  them  in  the  most  essential  relations  and  values  of 
life.  It  is  the  group  which  has  the  greatest  power  to  social- 
ize the  individual  and  to  adjust  him  to  the  requirements  even 
of  a  high  civilization.  If  it  fails  to  perform  this  important 
task,  the  chances  are  that  unsocialized  individuals  will 
abound,  and  that  social  anarchy  will  in  time  come  to  re- 
place social  order. 


84  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY 

V 

Thus  the  family  is  the  great  conserving  agency  in  society 
to  preserve  social  order  and  to  transmit  from  generation 
to  generation  both  the  material  and  the  spiritual  possessions 
of  the  race. 

The  Function  of  the  Family  in  Social  Progress.  —  While 
the  conservative  functions  of  the  family  in  social  life  are 
very  obvious,  the  part  which  it  plays  in  social  progress  has 
often  been  overlooked  and  even  denied.  Now,  social  prog- 
ress, we  shall  see  later,  depends  mainly  upon  two  things: 
the  accumulation  of  knowledge  and  the  accumulation  of 
altruism  —  regard  for  others  —  in  society.  It  is,  of  course, 
through  the  latter  that  the  family  life  plays  a  part  in  social 
progress.  The  family  is  the  chief  generator  of  altruism  in 
society,  and  increasing  altruism  is  necessary  for  the  success 
of  those  more  and  more  complex  forms  of  cooperation 
which  characterize  higher  civilization  and  upon  which  it 
depends.  It  is  chiefly  in  the  family  that  children  learn  to 
love,  to  be  of  service,  to  sacrifice  for  others,  and  to  respect 
one  another's  rights.  If  the  family  fails  to  teach  the  spirit 
of  service  and  self-sacrifice  to  its  members,  it  is  hardly 
probable  that  they  will  get  much  of  that  spirit  from  society 
at  large.  The  amount  of  altruism  in  society,  therefore,  has 
a  very  close  relation  to  the  quality  of  its  family  life.  Family 
affection  is  the  natural  root  of  altruism  in  society  at  large. 
If  the  family  life  is  the  chief  teacher  of  altruism  to  the 
individual,  and  if  society  depends  upon  increasing  altruism 
for  each  forward  step  in  moral  progress,  then  the  family 
life  plays  a  most  important  part  in  social  progress. 

There  is  another  way  also  in  which  the  altruism  and 
solidarity  of  the  family  play  a  most  important  part  in 
social  evolution.  All  human  history  has,  from  one  point 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  85 

of  view,  been  a  struggle  to  transfer  the  altruism  and  soli- 
darity of  the  family  to  successively  larger  and  larger  groups 
of  men.  In  other  words,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the 
family  is  the  primary  group  which  has  furnished  the  main 
moral  "patterns"  which  society  at  large  has  set  before 
itself  as  its  goal.  Our  primary  social  ideals,  in  the  main, 
come  from  the  family.  Thus  the  ideal  of  human  brother- 
hood is  manifestly  derived  from  the  family.  So  also  the 
ideals  of  love,  service,  self-sacrifice  for  the  sake  of  service, 
and  the  like,  in  society  at  large.  Higher  civilization  has 
set  these  ideals,  which  the  family  life  has  furnished,  before 
it  as  the  goals  of  progress. 

*-Thus  we  have  a  brief  presentation  of  the  claim  of  the 
family  to  be  regarded  not  only  as  the  primary,  but  also 
as  the  most  important  institution  of  human  society.  While 
primarily  its  function  is  the  birth  and  proper  rearing  of 
children,  yet  in  performing  this  function  it  has  become 
the  chief  medium  for  carrying  and  nourishing  the  essential 
values  of  civilization.  It  has  been  the  cradle  of  civilization 
in  the  past,  and  something  like  its  organization  at  best 
seems  to  be  the  normal  goal  which  men  set  up  for  society 
at  large  to  realize.,/  The  nation  whose  family  life  decays, 
therefore,  rots  at  the  core;  for  its  chief  spring  of  social 
and  civic  virtue  dries  up.-s/C 

The  Family  and  Industry.  —  The  family  is  so  depend- 
ent upon  industrial  conditions  in  performing  its  functions, 
and  industrial  conditions  so  react  upon  the  family  life, 
that  a  word  must  be  said  about  the  interrelations  of  these 
two  before  we  undertake  to  trace  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  the  family  as  a  human  institution. 

The  Domestic  Arts.     Primitively  all  industry  centered 


86  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY 

in  the  family.  Modern  industry  is  but  an  enormous  ex- 
pansion of  primitive  housekeeping;  that  is,  the  preparation 
of  food  and  clothing  and  shelter  by  the  primitive  family 
group  for  its  own  existence  is  the  germ  out  of  which  all 
modern  industry  has  developed.  The  very  word  economics 
means  the  science  or  the  art  of  the  household. 

In  primitive  communities  and  in  new  settled  districts 
the  family  often  carried  on  all  essential  industrial  activities. 
It  produced  all  the  raw  material,  manufactured  the  finished 
products,  and  consumed  the  same.  This  development  of 
household  arts  greatly  aided  the  development  of  human 
culture  and  at  the  same  time  integrated  the  family,  as  it 
made  the  family  a  more  or  less  self-sufficing  economic 
unit.  The  family  was  in  this  stage  of  social  and  industrial 
development  a  more  complete  miniature  society  or  com- 
munity, and  the  tradition  grew  up  that  these  domestic 
arts  must  be  maintained  in  the  home  if  the  family  was  to 
retain  its  integrity. 

But  with  the  growth  of  a  complex  civilization  there  has 
come  a  great  industrial  division  of  labor,  and  the  family 
has  delegated  industrial  activity  after  activity  to  some 
other  institution  until  at  the  present  time  the  modern 
family  performs  scarcely  any  industrial  activities,  except 
the  preparation  of  food  for  immediate  consumption.  Even 
this  in  modern  cities  seems  about  to  be  delegated  to  some 
other  institution. 

All  that  need  be  said  at  present  about  the  delegation 
of  the  industrial  activities  of  the  family  to  other  industrial 
institutions  is  that  the  movement  is  not  one  which  need 
cause  any  anxiety  so  long  as  it  does  not  interfere  with  the 
essential  function  of  the  family,  namely,  the  birth  and 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  87 

proper  rearing  of  children.  Even  though  children  can  no 
longer  learn  the  domestic  arts  and  the  rudiments  of  in- 
dustry in  their  home  life,  still  it  is  possible  through  man- 
ual, industrial,  and  domestic  science  training  in  our  public 
schools  to  teach  these  to  all  children.  And  the  removal 
of  arts  and  industries  from  the  home,  even  such  essential 
industries  as  the  preparation  of  food,  is  not  to  be  regarded 
as  necessarily  evil.  Jt  may  be  a  boon  if  it  gives  more  tune 
to  the  parents,  especially  to  the  mother,  for  the  proper 
care  and  bringing  up  of  the  children. 

The  Wages  of  Men.  This  removal  of  industries  from 
the  home,  however,  while  theoretically  to  be  welcomed, 
has  in  practice  under  present  economic  conditions  not 
always  had  the  beneficent  effect  of  giving  more  time  to 
parents  for  the  proper  care  of  their  children  and  of  securing 
a  better  home  life.  On  the  contrary,  the  removal  of  in- 
dustries from  the  home  has  often  been  followed  by  the 
removal  of  both  parents  and  children,  the  rendering  of  the 
family's  economic  situation  precarious,  and  the  practical 
disintegration  of  home  life.  The  wages  of  the  male  worker 
outside  of  the  home  have  too  often  tended  to  conform  to 
the  single  man's  standard, /though  government  statistics 
show  that  the  earnings  of  the  husband  constitute  80  per 
cent  of  the  total  income  of  the  average  wage-earner's 
family  hi  the  United  States.  Thus  the  census  statistics 
of  1910  showed  that  the  average  yearly  wage  of  all  male 
wage  earners  engaged  in  manufactures  in  the  United  States 
was  only  $517.91,  although  researches  by  experts  estab- 
lished at  nearly  the  same  time  the  fact  that  the  least  in- 
come on  which  a  family  consisting  of  two  parents  and  three 
young  children  could  maintain  a  decent  standard  of  living 


88  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY 

was,  for  the  city  of  New  York,  $825  a  year,  and  for  smaller 
cities  $650  a  year.  In  the  year  1915  another  investigation 
showed  that  four  fifths  of  the  heads  of  wage-earning  fami- 
lies received  less  than  $800  a  year,  while  it  was  estimated 
that,  on  account  of  the  rise  in  the  cost  of  living,  from  $950 
to  $1200,  according  to  locality,  was  necessary  to  maintain 
a  decent  standard  of  living  for  a  family  of  five.  Evidently 
I  modern  industry  has  been  quite  regardless  of  the  family, 
"*  and  has  in  many  instances  made  it  very  difficult  to  main- 
tain a  proper  home  life./ 

The  Labor  of  Women.  This  has  been  all  the  more  the 
case  because  in  many  instances  married  women,  often 
mothers,  have  gone  into  factories  to  supplement  the  in- 
sufficient income  of  the  family,  v  Under  such  circumstances 
the  home  has  often  become  a  mere  lodging  place,  children 
have  been  neglected  and  allowed  to  grow  up  on  the  streets 
and  hence  as  unsocialized  individuals.  In  1910  women 
wage  earners  formed  over  21  per  cent  of  the  total  bread 
winners  in  the  United  States.  Of  the  eight  million  women 
wage  earners,  1,772,000  were  employed  in  manufacturing 
industries.  However,  only  about  15  per  cent  of  all  the 
women  at  work  for  wages  in  1910  were  married.  In  foreign 
countries  the  proportion  is  much  larger,  and  since  1914 
j  the  number  has  undoubtedly  increased  greatly  in  the 
United  States.  It  is  too  late  to  stop  this  movement,  but 
the  labor  of  married  women  should  be  strictly  regulated 
by  the  state.  They  should  be  excluded  from  certain  in- 
dustries, their  hours  of  labor,  wages,  and  conditions  of 
work  should  be  prescribed,  and  above  all,  their  employ- 
ment for  a  given  period  before  and  after  the  birth  of  children 
should  be  prohibited;  for  it  has  been  found  that  wherever 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  89 

mothers  of  very  young  children  are  employed  outside  of 
the  home,  there  is  an  abnormally  high  rate  of  infant  mor- 
tality. 

Even  the  labor  of  young  unmarried  women  in  factories 
has  many  dangers  to  the  family;  for  they  are  by  such  work 
but  poorly  prepared  for  the  duties  of  wif ehood  and  mother- 
hood and  in  some  cases  their  health  may  be  impaired.  These 
evils  can  be  met,  however,  by  greater  attention  to  education 
in  the  domestic  arts  in  our  schools  and  by  stricter  regula- 
tion of  the  conditions  of  the  labor  of  women  by  the  state 
in  all  respects. 

The  Labor  of  Children.  Perhaps  the  climax  of  the  en- 
croachment of  modern  industry  upon  the  home  comes  when 
it  takes  young  children  out  of  the  home  and  puts  them  to 
work.  About  two  million  children  under  fifteen  years  of 
age  were  employed  in  the  United  States  in  1910  outside 
of  their  families,  though  only  about  one  fourth  of  these 
were  in  factories,  shops,  stores,  and  mines.  The  labor  of 
children  outside  of  the  home  has  sprung  very  largely  from 
the  insufficiency  of  family  income  noted  above.  While 
child  labor  is  often  defended  as  having  the  merit  of  giving 
the  child  some  industrial  training,  yet  careful  and  extensive 
investigations  show  that  its  net  result  is  to  dwarf  the  child 
in  body  and  mind,  to  lower  the  wages  of  adults,  and  above 
all,  to  deprive  the  child  of  that  education  which  alone  can 
prepare  him  for  efficient  citizenship.  The  drafting  of  chil- 
dren who  have  not  yet  completed  their  work  in  the  grades 
into  industry  must  be  regarded,  therefore,  as  altogether 
an  evil. 

Yet  the  remedy  for  these  evils  is  not  to  put  industrial 
work  back  in  the  home.  That,  under  modern  conditions, 


, 


00  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY 

produces  what  we  call  "the  sweat  shop,"  which  is  perhaps 
a  worse  evil  than  any  we  have  described.  The  remedy  is 
rather  in  so  organizing  industry  that  it  will  not  needlessly 
encroach  upon  our  family  life  —  in  securing  adequate  wages, 
reasonable  hours,  wholesome  conditions  of  work  in  industry. 
This  means  that  our  industry  must  be  organized  about 
our  family  life  rather  than  our  family  life  about  industry. 

/The  Subordination  of  Industry  to  the  Family  Life  is 
tecessary,  therefore,  from  a  social  point  of  view.  Industry, 
as  we  have  seen,  was  primitively  an  adjunct  of  the  family 
life,  and  all  modern  industry,  if  rightfully  developed,  should 
be  but  an  adjunct  to  the  family  life.  Industrial  considera- 
tions must  be,  therefore,  subordinate  to  domestic  considera- 
tions, that  is,  to  considerations  of  the  welfare  of  parents 
and  their  children  in  the  family  group.  One  trouble  with 
modern  society  is  that  industry  has  come  to  dominate  as 
an  independent  interest  that  oftentimes  does  not  recognize 
its  reasonable  and  socially  necessary  subordination  to  the 
higher  interests  of  society.  There  can  be  no  sane  and 
stable  family  life  until  we  are  willing  to  subordinate  the 
requirements  of  industry  to  the  requirements  of  the  family 
for  the  good  birth  and  proper  rearing  of  children.  This 
means  that  the  securing  of  a  normal  family  life  for  all  classes, 
rather  than  mere  economic  prosperity,  should  be  the  first 
consideration  in  all  attempts  at  social  reconstruction.  But 
the  full  significance  of  a  normal  family  life  for  human  wel- 
fare and  how  it  can  be  secured  will  be  evident  only  when 
we  have  considered  the  origin,  history,  and  present  con- 
dition of  the  family. 

Summary.  —  Primary,  or  face-to-face  groups  are  the  key 
to  the  understanding  of  our  social  life;  for  in  them  social 


THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY  91 

life  is  at  its  maximum.  They  perform  three  chief  functions: 
(i)  they  socialize  the  individual;  (2)  they  are  the  chief 
carriers  of  custom  and  tradition;  (3)  they  are  the  source  of 
primary  social  ideals  or  "social  patterns."  The  family  is 
the  chief  primary  group  and  the  most  important  of  human 
institutions,  since  it  controls  largely  the  birth  and  the 
rearing  of  children.  Because  the  family  involves  such  a 
close  association  of  both  sexes  and  all  ages  and  enlists  so 
many  of  the  forces  that  make  or  mar  social  life,  it  illus- 
trates the  problem  of  human  relations  —  the  "  social-  prob- 
lem" —  hi  the  clearest  possible  manner.  The  good  and 
evil  of  our  family  life  are  sure  to  reflect  themselves  through- 
out society.  If  what  has  been  said  regarding  the  impor- 
tance of  the  family  as  an  institution  is  at  all  true,  then  it  is 
evident  that  the  securing  of  a  normal  family  life  for  all 
classes  must  be  the  central  aim  of  scientific  social  recon- 
struction. y\ll  that  is  involved  in  a  "normal  family  life" 
will  become  evident,  however,  only  as  we  proceed  to  the 
survey  of  all  of  our  social  problems. 


SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

COOLEY,  Social  Organization,  Chaps.  III-V. 

ELLWOOD,  Introduction  to  Social  Psychology,  Chaps.  IV,  V. 

GILLETTE,  The  Family  and  Society,  Chap.  I. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

ADLER,  Marriage  and  Divorce,  Chap.  I. 

BOSANQUET,  The  Family,  Part  II. 

DEALEY,  The  Family  in  its  Sociological  Aspects,  Chap.  I. 

KELLEY,  Modern  Industry,  Chap.  I. 

MACLEAN,  Women  Workers  and  Society,  Chap.  III. 

ROWE,  Society,  Its  Origin  and  Development,  Part  II. 

SALEEBY,  Parenthood  and  Race  Culture,  Chap.  IX. 


92  THE  FUNCTION  OF  THE  FAMILY 

SMALL  and  VINCENT,  Introduction  to  the  Sttidy  of  Society,  Bk.  IV,  Chap.  I. 
SMITH,  Introduction  to  Educational  Sociology,  Chap.  IV. 
TOWNE,  Social  Problems,  Chaps.  IV-VI. 

Brief  bibliography  on  social  surveys  and  family  monographs  (see  Preface  of 
this  book,  p.  5) : 

ARONOVICI,  The  Social  Survey. 

BYINGTON,  What  Social  Workers  Should  Know  about  their  own  Com- 
munities. 

ELLWOOD,  The  LePlay  Method  of  Social  Observation,  (Family  Mon- 
ographs) in  American  Journal  of  Sociology,  Vol.  II,  p.  562  f. 

ELMER,  Technique  of  Social  Surveys. 

TAYLOR,  The  Social  Survey  (in  University  of  Missouri  Bulletins). 

See  also  Bibliography  of  Social  Surveys  published  by  Sage  Foundation. 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

WE  must  understand  the  biological  roots  of  the  family 

*  before  we  can  understand  the  family  as  an  institution,  and 

especially  before  we  can  understand  its  origin.     Let  us 

note,  then,  briefly  the  chief  biological  facts  connected  with 

the  family  life. 

The  Biological  Foundations  of  the  Family.  —  (i)  The 
Family  rests  upon  tJie  Great  Biological  Fact  of  Sex.  While 
sex  does  not  characterize  all  animal  forms,  still  it  does  char- 
acterize all  except  the  simplest  forms  of  animal  life.  These 
simplest  forms  multiply  or  reproduce  by  fission,  but  such 
asexual  reproduction  is  almost  entirely  confined  to  the  uni- 
cellular forms  of  life.  It  may  be  inferred,  therefore,  that 
the  higher  animal  types  could  not  have  been  evolved  with- 
out sexual  reproduction,  and  something  of  the  meaning  or 
significance  of  sex  in  the  whole  life-process  will,  therefore, 
be  helpful  in  understanding  all  of  the  higher  forms  of  evo- 
lution. Biologists  tell  us  that  the  meaning  or  purpose  of 
sexual  reproduction  is  to  bring  about  greater  organic  varia- 
tion. Now  variation,  as  we  have  seen,  is  the  raw  material 
upon  which  natural  selection  acts  to  create  the  higher  types. 
The  immense  superiority  of  sexual  reproduction  over  asexual 
reproduction  is  due  to  the  ijact  that  it  multiplies  so  greatly 
the  elements  of  heredity  in  each  new  organism,  for  under 
sexual  reproduction  every  new  organism  has  two  parents, 
four  grandparents,  and  so  on,  each  of  which  perhaps 

93 


94  THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE   FAMILY 

contributes  something  to  its  heredity.  The  biological  mean- 
ing of  sex,  then,  is  that  it  is  a  device  of  nature  to  bring  about 
organic  variation.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the  social  life 
we  may  note  also  that  sex  adds  greatly  to  its  variety,  enrich- 
ing it  with  numerous  fruitful  variations  which  undoubtedly 
further  social  evolution.  The  bareness  and  monotony  of 
a  social  life  without  sex  can  readily  be  imagined. 

While  the  differences  between  the  sexes  have  been  mainly 
elaborated  through  the  differences  of  reproductive  function, 
yet  these  differences  have  come  to  be  fundamental  to  the 
whole  nature  of  the  organism.  In  the  higher  animals, 
therefore,  the  sexes  differ  profoundly  in  many  ways  from 
each  other.  Biologists  tell  us  that  the  chief  difference 
between  the  male  and  female  organism  is  a  difference  in 
metabolism,  that  is,  in  the  rapidity  of  organic  change 
which  goes  on  within  the  body.  In  the  male  metabolism 
is  much  more  rapid  than  in  the  female;  hence  the  male 
organism  is  said  to  be  more  katabolic.  In  the  female  the 
rapidity  of  organic  change  is  less;  hence  the  female  is  said 
to  be  more  anabolic.  Put  in  more  familiar  terms,  the  male 
tends  to  expend  energy,  is  more  active,  hence  also  stronger; 
the  female  tends  more  to  store  up  energy,  is  more  passive, 
conservative,  and  weaker.  These  fundamental  differences 
between  the  sexes  express  themselves  in  many  ways  in  the 
social  life.  The  differences  between  man  and  woman, 
therefore,  are  not  to  be  thought  of  as  due  simply  to  social 
customs  and  usages,  the  different  social  environment  of 
the  two  sexes,  but  are  even  more  due  to  a  radical  and 
fundamental  difference  in  their  whole  nature.  The  belief 
that  the  two  sexes  would  become  like  each  other  in  character 
if  given  the  same  environment  is,  therefore,  erroneous. 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE   FAMILY  95 

That  these  differences  are  original,  or  inborn,  and  not 
acquired,  may  be  readily  seen  by  observing  children  of  dif- 
ferent sex.  Even  from  their  earliest  years  boys  are  more 
active,  restless,  energetic,  destructive,  untidy,  and  disobe- 
dient, while  little  girls  are  quieter,  less  restless,  less  destruc- 
tive, neater,  more  orderly,  and  more  obedient.  These 
different  innate  qualities  fit  the  sexes  naturally  for  different 
functions  in  human  society,  and  there  is,  therefore,  a  natural 
^division  of  labor  between  them,  which  indeed  may  be  said  to 
be  the  fundamental  division  of  labor  in  human  society. 

The  causes  which  produce  sex  in  the  individual  are  prob- 
ably beyond  the  control  of  man.  Sex  seems  to  be  a  form  of 
Mendelian  inheritance,1  and  is  determined  by  the  nature  of 
the  germ  cells  which  unite  to  form  the  new  individual. 
While  the  number  of  the  two  sexes  at  maturity  varies  in 
different  species  according  to  obscure  factors,  in  practically 
all  of  the  higher  species,  man  included,  they  are  relatively 
equal.  In  human  society  much  depends  upon  this  relative 
numerical  equality  of  the  two  sexes.  Hence  it  is  fortunate 
that  man  does  not  know  how  to  control  the  sex  of  offspring, 
for  if  he  did  the  numerical  equality  of  the  two  sexes  might 
be  disturbed  and  serious  social  results  would  follow. 

(2)  The  Influence  of  Parental  Care.     Sex  alone  could 
,  never  have  produced  the  family  in  the  sense  of  a  relatively 
'permanent  group  of  parents  and  offspring.     We  do  not 
begin  to  find  the  family  until  we  get  to  those  higher  types 
where  we  find  some  parental  care.     In  the  lowest  types 
the  relation  between  the  sexes  is  momentary  and  the  sur- 
vival  of   offspring   is    secured    simply    through    the  pro- 
duction   of   enormous    numbers.     Thus    the    sturgeon,    a 
1  See  Castle's  Heredity,  Chapter  X. 


96  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

low  type  of  fish,  produces  between  one  and  two  million 
of  eggs  at  a  single  spawning,  from  which  it  is  estimated 
that  not  more  than  a  dozen  individuals  survive  till  matur- 
ity is  reached.  Thus  sexual  reproduction  of  itself  neces- 
sitates no  parental  care  and  in  itself  could  give  rise  in  no 
way  to  the  family;  but  quite  low  in  the  scale  of  life  we 
begin  to  find  some  parental  care  as  a  device  to  protect 
immature  offspring  and  secure  their  survival  without  the 
expenditure  of  such  an  enormous  amount  of  energy  in 
mere  physiological  reproduction.  Even  among  the  fishes 
we  find  some  that  watch  over  the  eggs  after  they  are 
spawned  and  care  for  their  young  by  leading  them  to 
suitable  feeding  grounds.  In  such  cases  a  much  smaller 
number  of  young  need  to  be  produced  in  order  that  a  few 
may  survive  until  maturity  is  reached.  In  the  mammals 
the  mother,  obviously,  must  care  for  the  young  for  some 
time,  since  mammals  are  animals  that  suckle  their  young. 
But  this  care  of  the  young  by  a  single  parent  only  fore- 
shadows the  family  as  we  understand  it.  Among  the  mam- 
mals it  is  not  until  we  reach  the  higher  types  that  we  find 
care  of  offspring  by  both  parents,  —  a  practice,  however, 
which  is  common  among  the  birds.  It  is  evident  that  as 
soon  as  both  parents  are  concerned  in  the  care  of  the  off- 
spring they  have  a  much  better  chance  of  survival.  Hence, 
natural  selection  favors  the  growth  of  this  type  of  group 
life  and  develops  powerful  instincts  to  keep  male  and 
female  together  till  after  the  birth  and  rearing  of  offspring. 
Such  we  find  to  be  the  condition  among  many  of  the  higher 
mammals,  such  as  some  of  the  carnivora,  and  especially 
among  the  monkeys  and  apes  and  man. 

If  it  is  allowable  at  this  point  to  generalize  from  the 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE   FAMILY  97 

facts  given,  it  must  be  said  that  the  family  life  is  essentially 
a  device  of  nature  for  the  preservation  of  offspring  through 
a  more  or  less  prolonged  infancy.  The  family  group  and 
the  instincts  upon  which  it  rests  were  undoubtedly,  there- 
fore, instituted  by  natural  selection.  Summing  up,  we 
may  say,  then,  the  animal  family  group  owes  its  existence, 
first,  to  the  production  of  child  or  immature  forms  that 
need  more  or  less  prolonged  care;  secondly,  to  the  pro- 
longation of  this  period  of  immaturity  in  the  higher  ani- 
mals, and  especially  in  man;  thirdly",  to  the  development,, 
parallel  with  these  two  causes,  of  parental  instincts  which 
keep  male  and  female  together  for  the  care  of  the  off- 
spring. It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  family  life  rests,  not 
upon  sex  attraction,  but  upon  the  fact  of  the  child  and 
the  corresponding  psychological  fact  of  parental  instinct. 
The  family,  then,  has  been  created  by  the  very  conditions 
of  life  itself  and  is  not  a  man-made  institution. 

The  Origin  of  the  Family  in  the  Human  Species.  —  Two 
great  theories  of  the  origin  of  the  family  in  the  human 
species  have  in  the  past  been  more  or  less  accepted,  and 
these  we  must  now  examine  and  criticize.  First,  the  tradi- 
tional theory  that  the  human  family  life  was  from  the 
beginning  a  pure  monogamy.  Secondly,  the  so-called 
evolutionary  theory  that  the  human  family  life  arose  from 
confused  if  not  promiscuous  sex  relations.  The  first  of 
these  theories,  favored  both  by  the  Bible  and  Aristotle, 
held  undisputed  sway  down  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century.  Then,  after  the  publication  of  Darwin's  Origin 
of  Species  in  1859,  certain  social  theorists  began  to  put 
forward  the  second  theory  in  the  name  of  evolution.  In 
order  that  we  may  see  precisely  what  the  origin  of  the  human 


98  THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

family  life  was,  and  its  primitive  form,  we  must  now  pro- 
ceed to  criticize  these  two  theories,  especially  the  last, 
which  is  known  as  the  hypothesis  of  a  primitive  state  of 
promiscuity. 

The  Habits  of  the  Higher  Animals.  We  have  already 
spoken  of  the  origin  of  the  family  group  in  the  animal 
world  generally,  but  it  must  be  admitted  that  there  are 
some  difficulties  in  arguing  directly  from  the  lower  animals 
to  man.  Man  is  so  separated  from  the  lower  animals 
through  having  passed  through  many  higher  stages  of  an 
independent  evolution  that  in  many  respects  his  life  is 
peculiar  to  itself.  This  is  true  especially  of  his  family 
life.  If  we  survey  the  whole  range  of  animal  life  and  then 
the  whole  range  of  human  life,  we  find  that  there  are  but 
two  or  three  striking  similarities  between  the  family  life 
of  man  and  that  of  the  brutes,  but  a  great  many  striking 
dissimilarities.  The  similarities  may  be  summed  up  by 
saying  that  man  exhibits  in  common  with  all  the  animals 
the  phenomena  of  courtship,  that  is,  of  the  male  seeking 
to  win  the  female,  also  the  phenomenon,  of  male  jealousy, 
and  we  may  perhaps  add  an  instinctive  aversion  to  crossing 
with  other  species.  These  characteristics  of  his  family 
life  man  shares  with  the  brutes  below  him.  There  are, 
however,  many  things  peculiar  to  the  human  family  life  that 
are  found  in  no  animal  species  below  man.  The  most 
striking  of  these  differences  may  be  mentioned,  (i)  Man 
has  no  pairing  season,  as  practically  all  other  animals 
have.  (2)  The  number  of  young  born  in  the  human 
species  is  on  the  whole  much  smaller  than  in  any  other 
animal  species.  (3)  The  dependence  of  offspring  upon 
parents  is  far  longer  in  the  human  species  than  in  any  other 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY  99 

species.  (4)  Man  has  an  antipathy  to  incest  or  close 
inbreeding  which  seems  to  be  instinctive.  This  is  not 
found  clearly  in  any  animal  species  below  man.  (5)  There 
is  a  tendency  among  human  beings  to  artificial  adornment 
during  the  period  of  courtship,  but  not  to  natural  ornament 
to  any  extent,  as  among  many  animal  species.  (6)  The 
indorsement  of  society  is  almost  invariably  sought,  both 
among  uncivilized  and  civilized  peoples,  before  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  new  family  —  usually  through  the  forms 
of  a  religious  marriage  ceremony.  (7)  Chastity  in 
women,  especially  married  women,  is  universally  insisted 
upon,  both  among  uncivilized  and  civilized  peoples,  as  the 
basis  of  human  family  life.  (8)  There  is  a  feeling  of 
modesty  or  of  shame  as  regards  matters  of  sex  among  the 
human  beings.  (9)  In  humanity  we  find,  besides  animal 
lust,  spiritual  affection,  or  love,  as  a  bond  of  union  between 
the  two  sexes. 

None  of  these  peculiarities  of  human  family  life  are  found 
in  the  family  life  of  any  animal  species  below  man.  It 
might  seem,  therefore,  that  man's  family  life  must  be  re- 
garded as  a  special  creation  unconnected  with  the  family 
life  of  the  brutes  below  him.  But  this  view  is  hardly  prob- 
able, rather  is  impossible  from  the  standpoint  of  evolution. 
We  must  say  that  these  peculiarities  of  human  family  life 
are  to  be  explained  through  the  fact  that  man  has  passed 
through  many  more  stages  of  evolution,  particularly  of 
intellectual  evolution,  than  any  of  the  animals  below  him. 
If  we  examine  these  peculiarities  of  man's  family  life 
carefully,  we  will  see  that  they  all  can  be  explained  through 
natural  selection  and  man's  higher  intellectual  development. 
That  man  has  no  pairing  season,  has  fewer  offspring  born,. 


100  THE   ORIGIN  OF   THE   FAMILY 

and  a  longer  period  of  dependence  of  the  offspring  upon 
parents,  and  the  like,  is  directly  to  be  explained  through 
natural  selection;  while  seeking  the  indorsement  of  society 
before  forming  a  new  family,  sexual  modesty,  tendencies 
to  artificial  adornment,  and  the  like,  are  to  be  explained 
through  man's  self-consciousness  and  higher  intellectual 
development,  also  through  the  fuller  development  of  his 
social  instincts.  The  gap  between  the  human  family  life 
and  brute  family  life  is,  therefore,  not  an  unbridgeable  one. 

That  this  is  so,  we  see  most  clearly  when  we  consider  the 
family  life  of  the  anthropoid  or  manlike  apes  —  man's 
nearest  cousins  in  the  animal  world.  All  of  these  apes,  of 
which  the  chief  representatives  are  the  gorilla,  orang- 
utan, and  the  chimpanzee,  live  in  relatively  permanent 
family  groups,  usually  monogamous.  These  family  groups 
are  quite  human  in  many  of  their  characteristics,  such  as 
the  care  which  the  male  parent  gives  to  the  mother  and  her 
offspring,  and  the  seeming  affection  which  exists  between 
all  members  of  the  group.  Such  a  group  of  parents  and 
offspring  among  the  higher  apes  is,  moreover,  a  relatively 
permanent  affair,  children  of  different  ages  being  frequently 
found  along  with  their  parents  in  such  groups.  So  far  as 
the  evidence  of  animals  next  to  man,  therefore,  goes,  there 
is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  human  family  life  sprang 
from  confused  or  promiscuous  sex  relations  in  which  no 
permanent  union  between  male  and  female  parent  existed. 
On  the  contrary,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe,  as  Wester- 
marck  says,  that  human  family  life  is  an  inheritance  from 
man's  apelike  progenitor. 

The  Evidence  from  the  Lower  Human  Races.  —  The 
evidence  afforded  by  the  lowest  peoples  in  point  of  culture 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY  IO1 

even  more  clearly,  if  anything,  refutes  the  hypothesis  of 
a  primitive  state  of  promiscuity.  The  habits  or  customs 
of  the  lowest  peoples  were  not  well  known  previous  to  the 
nineteenth  century.  Therefore  it  was  possible  for  such  a 
theory  as  the  patriarchal  theory  of  the  primitive  family 
to  remain  generally  accepted,  as  we  have  already  said, 
down  to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  This  was 
the  theory  that  the  oldest  or  most  primitive  type  of  human 
family  life  is  that  depicted  in  the  opening  pages  of  the 
Book  of  Genesis,  namely,  a  family  life  in  which  the  father 
or  eldest  male  of  the  family  group  is  the  absolute  ruler 
of  the  group  and  practically  owner  of  all  persons  and 
property.  The  belief  that  this  was  the  primitive  type  of 
the  human  family  life  was  first  attacked  by  a  German-Swiss 
philologist  by  the  name  of  Bachofen  in  a  work  entitled  Das 
Mutlcrrccht  (The  Matriarchate),  published  in  1861,  in 
which  he  argued  that  antecedent  to  the  patriarchal  period 
was  a  matriarchal  period,  in  which  women  were  dominant 
socially  and  politically,  and  in  which  relationships  were 
traced  through  mothers  only.  Bachofen  got  his  evidence 
for  this  theory  from  certain  ancient  legends,  such  as  that  of 
the  Amazons,  and  other  remains  in  Greek  and  Roman 
literature,  which  seemed  to  point  to  a  period  antecedent 
to  the  patriarchal. 

In  1876  Mr.  J.  F.  McLennan,  a  Scotch  lawyer,  put 
forth,  independently,  practically  the  same  theory,  basing  it 
upon  certain  legal  survivals  which  he  found  among  many 
peoples.  With  Bachofen,  he  argued  that  this  matriarchal 
period  must  have  been  characterized  by  promiscuous  rela- 
tions of  the  sexes.  In  1877  Mr.  Lewis  H.  Morgan,  an 
American  ethnologist  and  sociologist,  put  forth  again, 


102  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   FAMILY 

independently,  practically  the  same  theory,  basing  it  upon 
an  extensive  study  of  the  North  American  Indian  tribes. 
Morgan  had  lived  among  the  Iroquois  Indians  for  years 
and  had  mastered  their  system  of  relationship,  which 
previously  had  puzzled  the  whites.  He  found  that  they 
traced  relationship  through  mothers  only,  and  not  at  all 
along  the  male  line.  This  method  of  reckoning  relationship, 
moreover,  he  found  also  characterized  practically  all  of  the 
North  American  Indian  tribes,  and  he  argued  that  the 
only  explanation  of  it  was  that  originally  sexual  relations 
were  of  such  an  unstable  or  promiscuous  character  that  they 
would  not  permit  of  tracing  descent  through  fathers. 

From  these  theories  sociological  writers  put  forth  the 
conclusion  that  the  primitive  state  was  one  of  promiscuity, 
or,  as  Sir  John  Lubbock  called  it  in  his  Origin  of  Civilization, 
one  of  "  communism  in  women."  Post,  a  German  student 
of  comparative  jurisprudence,  for  example,  summed  up 
the  theory  by  saying  that  "  monogamous  marriage  origi- 
nally emerged  everywhere  from  pure  communism  in  women, 
through  the  intermediate  stages  of  limited  communism  in 
women,  polyandry,  and  polygyny."  Even  Herbert  Spencer 
in  his  Principles  of  Sociology,  while  he  avoided  accepting 
such  an  extreme  theory,  asserted  that  in  the  beginning 
sex  relations  were  confused  and  unregulated,  and  that  all 
forms  of  marriage  —  polyandry,  polygyny,  monogamy, 
and  promiscuity  —  existed  alongside  of  one  another  and 
that  monogamy  survived  through  its  being  the  superior 
form. 

Before  giving  a  criticism  in  detail  of  this  theory  let  us 
note  whether  the  evidence  from  the  lowest  peoples  con- 
firms it.  The  lowest  peoples  in  point  of  culture  are  not 


THE   ORIGIN   OF  THE   FAMILY 


103 


the  North  American  Indians  nor  the  African  Negroes,  but 
certain  isolated  groups  that  live  almost  in  a  state  of  nature, 
without  any  attempt  to  cultivate  the  soil  or  to  control 
nature  in  other  respects.  Such  are  the  Bushmen  of  South 
Africa,  the  Australian  Aborigines,  the  Negritos  of  the 
Philippine  Islands  and  of  the  Andaman  Islands,  the  Veddahs 
of  Ceylon,  and  the  Fuegians  of  South  America.  Now  all 
these  peoples,  with  a  possible  exception,1  practice  monogamy 
and  live  in  relatively  stable  family  groups.  Their  monog- 
amy, however,  is  not  of  the  type  found  in  patriarchal 
times  or  among  civilized  peoples,  but  is  a  simple  pairing 
monogamy,  husband  and  wife  remaining  together  indefi- 
nitely if  children  are  born,  but  separating  easily  if  childless. 
Westermarck  in  his  History  of  Human  Marriage  shows  un- 
doubtedly that  nothing  approaching  promiscuity  existed 
among  these  lower  peoples.  Promiscuity  is  apt  to  be  found 
at  a  higher  stage  of  social  development,  and  is  especially 
apt  to  be  found  among  the  nature  peoples  after  the  white 
man  has  visited  them  and  demoralized  their  family  life. 
But  in  all  these  cases  the  existence  of  promiscuity  is  mani- 
festly something  exceptional  and  abnormal.  Perhaps 
civilized  peoples  such  as  the  Romans  of  the  decadence 
have  more  nearly  approximated  the  condition  of  promis- 
cuity than  any  savage  people  of  which  we  have  knowledge. 
At  any  rate,  the  lowest  existing  savages  found  in  the  nine- 
teenth century  had  definite  forms  of  family  life,  and  the  type 
usually  found  was  the  simple  pairing  monogamy  mentioned 
above. 

1  The  Australian  Aborigines.  For  the  evidence  for  the  existence  of  pro- 
miscuity among  them,  see  Spencer  and  Gillen's  Native  Tribes  of  Central 
Australia;  also  Professor  J.  G.  Frazer's  Totemism  and  Exogamy,  Vol.  IV. 


104 


THE   ORIGIN   OF  THE   FAMILY 


Objections  to  the  Hypothesis  of  a  Primitive  State  of 
Promiscuity.  —  We  may  now  briefly  sum  up  the  main 
criticisms  of  this  theory  of  a  primitive  state  of  promis- 
cuity, not  only  as  we  may  derive  them  from  inductive  study 
of  the  higher  animals  and  the  lower  peoples,  but  also  as 
we  may  deduce  them  from  known  psychological  and  bio- 
logical facts  or  principles. 

(1)  In  the  first  place,  then,  the  animals  next  to  man, 
namely,  the  anthropoid  apes,  do  not  show  a  condition  of 
promiscuity. 

(2)  The  evidence  from  the  lower  peoples  does  not  show 
that  such  a  condition  exists  or  has  ever  existed  among  them. 

(3)  A  third  argument  against  this  hypothesis  may  be 
gained  from  what  we  know  of  primitive  economic  condi- 
tions.    Under  the  most  primitive  conditions,  in  which  man 
had  no  mastery  over  nature,  food  supply  was  relatively 
scarce,  and  as  a  rule  only  very  small  groups   of   people 
could  live  together.     The  smallness  of  primitive    groups, 
on  account  of  the  scarcity  of  food  supply,  would  prevent 
anything  like  promiscuity  on  a  large  scale. 

(4)  A  fourth  argument  of  a  deductive  nature  is  that  the 
jealousy  of  the  male,  which  characterizes  all  higher  animals 
and   especially  man,   would   prevent   anything    like    the 
existence  of  sexual  promiscuity.     The  tendency  of  man 
would  have  been  to  appropriate  one  or  more  women  for 
himself   and   drive   away   all   rivals.     Long   ago   Darwin 
argued  that    this  would  prevent  anything  like  the  exist- 
ence of  a  general  state  of  promiscuity. 

(5)  A  fifth  argument  against  this  theory  may  be  got 
fro^i  the  general  biological  fact  that  sexual  promiscuity 
tends  to  pathological  conditions  unfavorable  to  fecundity, 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE   FAMILY  105 

that  is,  fertility,  or  the  birth  of  offspring.  Physicians  have 
long  ago  ascertained  this  fact,  and  the  modern  prostitute 
gives  illustration  of  it  by  the  fact  that  she  has  few  or  no 
children.  Among  the  lower  animal  species,  in  which  some 
degree  of  promiscuity  obtains,  moreover,  powerful  instincts 
keep  the  sexes  apart  except  at  the  pairing  season.  Now,  no 
such  instincts  exist  in  man.  Promiscuity  in  man  would, 
therefore,  greatly  lessen  the  birth  rate,  and  any  group 
that  practiced  it  to  any  extent  would  soon  be  eliminated 
in  competition  with  other  groups  that  did  not  practice  it. 

(6)  We  have  finally  the  general  social  fact  that  promis- 
cuity would  lead  to  the  neglect  of  children.  Promiscuity 
means  that  the  male  parent  does  not  remain  with  the 
female  parent  to  care  for  the  offspring  and,  therefore,  in 
the  human  species  it  would  mean  that  the  care  of  children 
would  be  thrown  wholly  upon  the  mother.  This  means 
that  the  children  would  have  less  chance  of  surviving. 
Not  only  would  promiscuity  lead  to  lessening  the  birth 
rate,  but  it  would  lead  to  a  much  higher  mortality  in  children 
born.  This  is  found  to  be  a  striking  fact  wherever  we 
find  any  degree  of  promiscuity  among  any  people.  Hence, 
promiscuity  would  soon  exterminate  any  people  that 
practiced  it  extensively  in  competition  with  other  peoples 
that  did  not  practice  it. 

From  all  of  these  lines  of  argument,  without  going  over 
the  evidence  in  greater  detail,  it  seems  reasonable  to  con- 
clude with  Westermarck  "  that  the  hypothesis  of  a  primi- 
tive state  of  promiscuity  has  no  foundation  in  fact  and  is 
essentially  unscientific."  The  facts  put  forth  in  support 
of  the  theory  do  not  justify  the  conclusion,  Westermarck 
says,  that  promiscuity  has  ever  been  a  general  practice 


Io6  THE   ORIGIN   OF   THE   FAMILY 

among  a  single  people  and  much  less  that  it  was  the  prim- 
itive state.  Promiscuity  is  found,  however,  more  or  less 
in  the  form  of  sexual  irregularities  or  immorality  among 
all  peoples;  more  often,  however,  among  the  civilized  than 
among  the  uncivilized,  but  among  no  people  has  it  ever 
existed  unqualified  by  more  enduring  forms  of  sex  relation. 
Moreover,  because  promiscuity  breaks  up  the  social  bonds,  ( 
throws  the  burden  of  the  care  of  children  wholly  upon  the 
mother,  and  lessens  the  birth  rate,  we  are  justified  in 
concluding  that  promiscuity  is  essentially  an  antisocial 
practice.  This  agrees  with  the  facts  generally  shown  by 
criminology  and  sociology,  that  the  elements  practicing 
promiscuity  to  any  great  extent  in  modern  societies  are 
those  most  closely  related  with  the  degenerate  and  criminal 
elements.  Those  elements,  in  other  words,  in  modern 
society  that  practice  promiscuity  are  on  the  road  to  ex- 
tinction, and  if  a  people  generally  were  to  practice  it  there 
is  no  reason  to  believe  that  such  a  people  would  meet  with 
any  different  fate. 

The  Earliest  Form  of  the  Family  Life  in  the  Human 
Species,  therefore,  is  probably  that  of  the  simple  pairing 
monogamous  family  found  among  many  of  the  higher 
animals,  especially  the  anthropoid  apes,  and  also  found* 
among  the  lower  peoples.  This  primitive  monogamy, 
however,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  not  accompanied  by 
the  social,  legal,  and  religious  elements  that  the  historic 
monogamic  family  has  largely  rested  upon.  On  the  con- 
trary, this  primitive  monogamy  rested  solely  upon  an  in- 
stinctive basis,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  unless  children  were 
bora  it  was  apt  to  be  relatively  unstable.  Permanency  in 
family  relations  among  primitive  peoples  depended  largely 


THE  ORIGIN   OF  THE  FAMILY  107 

upon  the  birth  of  children.  Thus  we  find  confirmed  our 
conclusion  drawn  some  time  ago  that  family  life  rests  pri- 
marily upon  the  parental  instinct.  That  it  still  so  rests  is 
shown  by  the  fact,  as  we  shall  see  later,  that  divorce  is  many 
times  more  common  among  couples  that  have  no  children 
than  among  those  that  have  children. 

Some  General  Conclusions,  both  of  theoretical  and  of 
practical  bearing,  may  here  be  pointed  out.  We  have 
seen  that  the  biological  processes  of  life  have  created  the 
family,  and  that  the  family,  as  an  institution,  rests  upon 
these  biological  conditions.  Hence  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say,  first,  that  the  family  is  not  a  man-made  institution; 
and,  secondly,  that  it  rests  upon  certain  fundamental 
instincts  of  human  nature.  Both  of  these  statements  are 
also  true  to  a  certain  extent  of  human  society  in  general. 
There  is  a  sense  in  which  social  organization  is  not  wholly 
man-made,  and  we  have  already  seen  that  human  insti- 
tutions rest  to  some  extent  upon  human  instincts.  This  is 
not  saying,  of  course,  that  man  has  not  modified  and  may  not 
modify  social  organization  and  human  institutions  through 
his  reason,  but  it  is  saying  that  the  essential  elements  in 
human  institutions  and  in  the  social  order  must  correspond 
to  the  conditions  of  lif  e  generally  and  to  the  instincts  which 
natural  selection  has  implanted  in  the  species.  To  attempt 
to  reorganize  human  society  or  to  reconstruct  institutions 
regardless  of  the  biological  conditions  of  life,  or  regardless 
of  human  instincts,  is  to  meet  with  certain  failure. 

A  practical  conclusion  which  may  be  drawn  also  is  that 
those  people  who  advocate  sexual  promiscuity  in  present 
society,  or  free  love,  as  they  please  to  style  it,  are  advocat- 
ing a  condition  which  would  result  in  the  elimination  of  any 


108  THE   ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY 

group  that  practiced  it.  Promiscuity,  or  even  great  in- 
stability in  the  family  life,  as  we  have  already  seen,  would 
lead  to  the  undermining  of  everything  upon  which  a  higher 
civilization  rests.  The  people  in  modern  society  who 
advocate  such  theories  as  free  love,  therefore,  are  more 
dangerous  than  the  worst  anarchist  or  the  most  revolu- 
tionary socialist.  In  other  words,  the  modern  attack  upon 
the  family  is  more  of  a  menace  to  all  that  is  worth  while  in 
human  life  than  all  attacks  upon  government  and  property, 
although  it  is  not  usually  resented  as  such;  and  it  is  one  of 
the  most  serious  signs  of  the  times  that  many  intellectual 
people  have  indorsed  such  views.  We  must  reempha- 
size,  therefore,  the  fact  that  the  family  is  the  central  insti- 
tution of  human  society,  that  industry  and  the  state  must 
subordinate  themselves  to  its  interest.  Neither  the  state 
nor  industry  has  had  much  to  do  with  the  origin  of  the 
family,  and  neither  the  state  nor  industry  may  safely 
determine  its  forms  independent  of  the  biological  require- 
ments for  human  survival.  Moreover,  it  is  evident  that 
human  society  from  the  beginning  has  in  more  or  less  in- 
stinctive, and  also  in  more  or  less  conscious,  ways  attempted 
to  regulate  the  relations  between  the  sexes  with  a  view 
to  controlling  the  reproductive  process.  While  material 
civilization  is  mainly  a  control  over  the  food  process,  moral 
civilization  involves  a  control  over  the  reproductive  process, 
that  is,  over  the  birth  and  rearing  of  children;  and  such 
control  over  the  reproductive  process,  which  has  certainly 
been  one  of  the  aims  of  all  social  organization  in  the  past, 
whether  of  savage  peoples  or  of  civilized  peoples,  evidently 
precludes  anything  like  the  toleration  of  promiscuity  or 
even  of  free  love. 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  FAMILY  109 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

GOODSELL,  The  Family  as  a  Social  and  Educational  Institution,  Chap.  II. 
HOWARD,  History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  Vol.  I,  Chaps.  I,  III. 
WESTERMARCK,  History  of  Human  Marriage,  Chaps.  I-VI. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

GEDDES  and  THOMSON,  Sex,  Chaps.  V,  VII,  IX. 
HEINEMAN,  Physical  Basis  of  Civilization,  Chaps.  IV-VTI, 
LETOURNEAU,  The  Evolution  of  Marriage  and  the  Family. 
LUBBOCK,  The  Origin  of  Civilization,  Chaps.  I-TV. 
MCLENNAN,  Primitive  Marriage,  Chaps.  V-VIII. 
MORGAN,  Ancient  Society,  Part  II,  Chaps.  I-V. 
PARSONS,  The  Family,  Lectures  I,  II,  VI. 
STARCKE,  The  Primitive  Family. 
SPENCER,  Principles  of  Sociology,  Vol.  I,  Part  HI. 
THOMAS,  Source  Book  for  Social  Origins,  Part  IV. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  FORMS   OF  THE  FAMILY 

THE  family  as  an  institution  has  varied  greatly  in  its 
forms  from  age  to  age  and  from  people  to  people.  This  is 
what  we  should  expect,  seeing  that  all  organic  structures  are 
variable.  Such  variations  hi  human  institutions  are  due 
partly  to  the  influences  of  the  environment,  partly  to  the 
state  of  knowledge,  and  partly  to  many  other  causes  as 
yet  not  well  understood.  The  family  illustrates  in  greater 
or  less  degree  the  working  of  these  causes  of  variation  and 
of  change  in  human  institutions. 

The  Maternal  and  Paternal  Families.  —  As  regards  the 
general  form  of  the  family  we  have  to  note  first  of  all  the 
two  great  forms  which  we  may  characterize  respectively 
as ' '  the  maternal  family  "  and  "  the  paternal  family. "  As  we 
have  already  seen,  Bachofen,  Morgan,  and  others  discovered 
a  condition  of  human  society  in  which  relationship  was 
traced  through  mothers  only,  and  in  which  property  or 
authority  descended  along  the  female  line  rather  than  along 
the  male  line.  Further  investigation  and  research  have 
shown  that  up  to  recent  times,  say  up  to  fifty  years  ago, 
one  half  of  all  the  peoples  of  the  world,  if  we  reckon  them  by 
nations  and  tribes  rather  than  by  numbers,  practiced  this 
system  of  reckoning  kinship  through  mothers  only,  and 
passed  property  and  authority  down  along  the  female  line. 
Ethnologists  and  sociologists  have  practically  concluded, 
from  the  amount  of  evidence  now  collected,  that  this  ma- 


THE  FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY          III 

ternal  or  metronymic  system  was  the  primitive  system  of 
tracing  relationships,  and  that  it  was  succeeded  among  the 
European  peoples  by  the  paternal  system  so  long  ago  that 
the  transition  from  the  one  to  the  other  has  been  forgotten, 
except  as  some  trace  of  it  has  been  preserved  in  customs, 
legends,  and  the  like. 

Among  many  tribes  of  the  North  American  Indians 
this  metronymic  or  maternal  system  was  peculiarly  well- 
developed.  Children  took  their  mother's  name,  not  their 
father's  name;  belonged  to  their  mother's  clan,  not  their 
father's  clan;  and  the  chief  transmitted  his  authority, 
if  hereditary,  not  to  his  own  son,  but  to  his  eldest  sister's 
son.  The  relatives  on  the  father's  side,  indeed,  were  quite 
ignored.  Frequently  the  maternal  uncle  had  more  legal 
authority  over  the  children  than  their  own  father,  seeing 
that  the  children  belonged  to  his  clan,  that  is,  to  their 
mother's  clan. 

Now,  Bachofen  claimed  not  only  that  in  this  stage  was 
kinship  reckoned  through  mothers  only,  but  that  women 
were  dominant  socially  and  politically;  that  there  existed 
a  true  matriarchy,  or  rule  of  the  mothers.  Do  the  facts 
support  Bachofen's  theory?  Let  us  see.  The  Wyandot 
Indians,  a  branch  of  the  Iroquois,  were  a  typical  maternal 
or  metronymic  people.  Among  them,  without  any  doubt, 
the  women  had  a  position  of  influence  socially  and  even 
politically  which  often  is  not  found  among  peoples  of  higher 
culture.  For  example,  among  the  Wyandots  the  govern- 
ment of  the  clan  was  in  the  hands  of  four  women  councilors 
(Matrons),  who  were  elected  by  all  the  adults  in  the  clan. 
These  four  women  councilors,  however,  elected  a  Peace 
Sachem,  who  carried  out  the  will  of  the  clan  in  all  matters 


H2  THE   FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY 

pertaining  to  peace  generally.  Moreover,  the  councilors  of 
the  several  clans,  four  fifths  of  whom  were  women,  met  to- 
gether to  form  the  Tribal  Council;  but  in  this  Tribal  Council 
the  women  sat  separate,  not  participating  in  the  delibera- 
tions, but  exercising  only  a  veto  power  on  the  decisions  of 
the  men.  In  matters  of  war,  however,  government  was  in- 
trusted to  two  war  chiefs  elected  from  the  tribe  generally, 
the  women  here  only  having  the  right  to  veto  the  decision 
of  the  tribe  to  enter  upon  the  warpath.  Thus  we  see  that 
while  the  women  of  the  Iroquois  Indians  had  a  great  deal 
of  social  and  political  influence,  the  actual  work  of  govern- 
ment was  largely  turned  over  by  them  to  the  men,  and 
especially  was  this  true  of  directing  the  affairs  of  the  tribe  in 
time  of  war.  There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  in  the  mater- 
nal stage  of  social  evolution  women  had  an  influence  in 
domestic,  religious,  and  social  matters  much  greater  than 
they  had  at  many  later  stages  of  social  development. 
Among  the  Zuni  of  New  Mexico,  for  example,  another  well- 
developed  maternal  people,  marriage  is  always  arranged 
by  the  bride's  parents.  The  husband  goes  to  live  with 
his  wife,  and  is  practically  a  guest  in  his  wife's  house  all 
his  life  long,  she  alone  having  the  right  of  divorce.  In- 
deed, among  all  maternal  peoples  the  rule  is  that  the 
husband  goes  to  live  with  the  wife,  and  not  the  wife  with 
the  husband,  the  children,  as  we  have  already  seen,  keep- 
ing the  mother's  name  and  belonging  to  her  kindred  or 
clan. 

Nevertheless  we  cannot  agree  with  Bachofen  that  a 
true  matriarchy,  or  government  by  women,  ever  existed. 
On  the  contrary,  among  all  of  these  maternal  peoples, 
while  the  women  may  have  much  influence  socially  and 


THE   FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY  113 

politically,  the  men,  on  account  of  their  superior  strength, 
are  intrusted  with  the  work  not  only  of  protecting  and 
providing  for  the  families  and  driving  away  enemies,  but 
also  largely  with  the  work  of  maintaining  the  internal 
government  and  order  of  the  people.  Strictly  speaking, 
therefore,  there  has  never  been  a  matriarchal  stage  off 
social  evolution,  but  rather  a  maternal  or  metronymic 
stage. 

We  have  already  said  that  this  stage  was  probably  the 
primitive  one.  How  are  we  to  explain,  then,  that  primitive 
man  reckoned  kinship  through  mothers  only?  Was  this 
due,  as  Morgan  thought,  to  a  primitive  practice  of  pro- 
miscuity which  prevented  tracing  relationships  through 
fathers?  The  reply  is,  that  among  the  many  maternal 
peoples  now  well  known,  among  whom  relationships  are 
traced  through  mothers  only,  we  find  no  evidence  of  the 
practice  of  general  promiscuity  now  or  even  in  remote 
times.  The  North  American  Indians,  for  example,  had 
quite  definite  forms  of  the  family  life  and  were  very  far 
removed  from  the  practice  of  promiscuity,  though  they 
traced  relationship  through  mothers  only.  It  is  evident 
that  the  causes  of  the  maternal  family  and  the  maternal 
system  of  relationship  are  not  so  simple  as  Morgan  sup- 
posed. What,  then,  were  the  causes  of  the  maternal 
system?  It  is  probable  that  man  in  the  earliest  times  did 
not  know  the  physiological  connection  between  father  and 
child.  The  physiological  connection  between  mother  and 
child,  on  the  other  hand,  was  an  obvious  fact  which  required 
no  knowledge  of  physiology  to  establish;  therefore,  nothing 
was  more  natural  than  for  primitive  man  to  recognize 
that  the  child  was  of  the  mother's  blood,  but  not  of  the 


114  THE  FORMS   OF  THE  FAMILY 

father's  blood.  Therefore,  the  child  belonged  to  the 
mother's  people  and  not  to  the  father's  people.  If  it  be 
asked  whether  it  is  possible  that  there  could  be  any  human 
beings  so  ignorant  that  they  do  not  know  the  physiolog- 
ical connection  between  father  and  child,  the  reply  is, 
that  this  is  apparently  the  case  among  a  number  of  very 
primitive  peoples,  even  down  to  recent  times.  It  is  not 
infrequent  among  these  peoples  to  find  conception  and 
childbirth  attributed  to  the  influence  of  the  spirits,  rather 
than  to  relations  between  male  and  female.  While,  there- 
fore, a  social  connection  between  the  father  and  the  children 
was  recognized,  leading  the  father  to  provide  in  all  ways 
for  his  children,  as  fathers  do  whether  among  civilized 
or  uncivilized  peoples,  yet  the  blood  relationship  between 
the  father  and  the  child  could  not  have  been  clear  in  the 
most  primitive  times. 

Perhaps  an  even  more  efficient  cause,  however,  of  the 
maternal  system  was  the  fact  that  the  mother  in  primitive 
times  was  the  stable  element  in  the  family  life,  the  constant 
center  of  the  family.  The  husband  was  frequently  away 
from  home,  hunting  or  fighting,  and  oftentimes  failed  to 
return.  Nothing  was  more  natural,  therefore,  than  that 
the  child  should  be  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  mother, 
take  her  name  and  belong  to  her  kindred  or  clan.  More- 
over, after  the  custom  of  naming  children  from  mothers 
and  reckoning  them  as  belonging  to  the  mother's  clan  was 
established,  it  could  not  be  displaced  by  the  mere  discovery 
of  the  physiological  connection  between  the  father  and  the 
child.  On  the  contrary  social  habits,  like  habits  in  the 
individual,  tend  to  persist  until  they  work  badly.  We  find, 
therefore,  the  maternal  system  persisting  among  peoples 


THE  FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY  115 

who  for  many  generations  had  come  fully  to  recognize  the 
physiological  connection  of  father  and  child.  Indeed,  the 
maternal  system  could  never  have  been  done  away  with 
if  social  evolution  had  not  brought  about  new  and  complex 
conditions  which  caused  the  system  to  break  down  and  to 
be  replaced  by  the  paternal  system. 

The  Paternal  and  the  Patriarchal  Family.  —  At  a  cer- 
tain stage,  then,  we  find  a  great  change  in  the  organization 
of  the  family,  which  probably  took  place  slowly  and  largely 
unconsciously.  The  family  life  becomes  definitely  organized 
about  the  male  element,  and  the  maternal  system  disap- 
pears. At  first  the  paternal  family  appears  with  children 
taking  the  father's  name  and  property  and  titles  passing 
along  the  male  line.  Then  there  develops  that  extreme 
form  of  the  paternal  family  which  we  know  as  the  patriar- 
chal family,  in  which  the  authority  of  the  husband  and 
father  has  become  supreme  and  the  position  of  the  wife  and 
children  has  been  reduced,  if  not  to  that  of  property,  at 
least  to  that  of  subject  persons.  Classical  pictures  of 
patriarchal  family  life  may  be  found  in  the  pages  of  the 
Old  Testament.  What,  then,  were  the  causes  which  brought 
about  the  breakdown  of  the  maternal  system  and  the 
gradual  development,  first  of  a  paternal,  and  then  of  a 
patriarchal  system?  Some  of  these  causes  we  can  clearly 
make  out  from  the  study  of  social  history. 

(i)  War  was  unquestionably  a  cause  of  the  breakdown 
of  the  maternal  system  through  the  fact  that  women  were 
captured  in  war,  held  as  slaves,  and  made  wives  or  concu- 
bines by  then-  captors.  These  captured  wives  were  regarded 
as  the  property  of  the  captor.  Any  children  bom  to  them 
were,  therefore,  also  regarded  as  the  property  of  the  captor. 


Il6  THE   FORMS  OF  THE   FAMILY 

Furthermore,  these  captured  wives  were  separated  from 
their  kindred,  and  their  children  could  not  possibly  belong 
to  any  clan  except  their  husband's.  Manifestly  this  cause 
could  not  have  worked  in  the  earliest  times,  when  slave 
captives  were  not  valuable;  but  as  soon  as  slavery  became 
instituted  in  any  form,  then  women  slaves  were  particularly 
valued,  not  only  for  their  labor,  but  because  they  might 
be  either  concubines  or  wives.  It  is  evident,  then,  that 
war  and  slavery  would  thus  indirectly  tend  to  undermine 
the  maternal  system. 

(2)  Wife  purchase  would   operate   in    the   same   way. 
Among  peoples  that  had  developed  a  commercial  life  as 
well  as  slavery  it  early  became  the  practice  to  purchase 
wives.     It  is  evident  that  these  purchased  wives  would  be 
regarded  as  a  sort  of  property,  and  the  husband  would 
naturally  claim  the  children  as  belonging  to  him.    Among 
certain  North  American  Indians  we  find  exactly  this  state 
of  affairs.     If  a  man  married  a  wife  without  paying  the 
purchase  price  for  her,  then  her  children  took  her  name  and 
belonged  to  her  clan;  but  if  he  had  purchased  her,  say 
with  a  number  of  blankets,  then  the  children  took  his  name 
and  belonged  to  his  clan. 

(3)  The  decisive  cause,  however,  of  the  breakdown  of 
the  maternal  system  was  the  development  of  the  pastoral 
stage  of  industry.     Now,  the  grazing  of  flocks  and  herds 
requires  considerable  territory  and  necessitates  small  and 
compact  groups  widely  separated  from  one  another.     Hence, 
in  the  pastoral  stage  the  wife  must  go  with  the  husband 
and  be  far  removed  from  the  influence  and  authority  of  her 
own  kindred.     This  gave  the  husband  greater  power  over 
his  wife.    Moreover,  the  care  of  flocks  and  herds  accen- 


THE   FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY  117 

tuated  the  value  of  the  male  laborer,  while  primitively 
woman  had  been  the  chief  laborer.  In  the  pastoral  stage 
the  man  had  the  main  burden  of  caring  for  the  flocks  and 
herds.  Under  such  circumstances  nothing  was  more 
natural  than  that  the  authority  of  the  owner  of  the  family 
property  should  gradually  become  supreme  in  all  matters, 
and  we  find,  therefore,  among  all  pastoral  peoples  that  the 
family  is  itself  a  little  political  unit,  the  children  taking  the 
father's  name,  property  and  authority  passing  down  along 
the  male  line,  while  the  eldest  living  male  is  usually  the  ruler 
of  the  whole  group. 

(4)  After  all  these  causes  came  another  factor  — 
ancestor  worship.  While  ancestor  worship  exists  to  some 
extent  among  maternal  peoples,  it  is  usually  not  well- 
developed  for  some  reason  or  other  until  the  paternal  stage 
is  reached.  Ancestor  worship,  being  the  worship  of  the 
departed  ancestors  as  heroes,  seems  to  develop  more  readily 
where  the  line  of  ancestors  are  males.  It  may  be  sug- 
gested that  the  male  ancestor  is  apt  to  be  a  more  heroic 
figure  than  the  female  ancestor.  At  any  rate,  when  ancestor 
worship  became  fully  developed  it  powerfully  tended  to 
reenforce  the  authority  of  the  patriarch,  because  he  was, 
as  the  eldest  living  ancestor,  the  representative  of  the  gods 
upon  earth,  therefore  his  power  became  almost  divine. 
Religion  thus  finally  came  in  to  place  the  patriarchal  family 
upon  a  very  firm  basis. 

Thus  we  see  how  each  of  these  two  great  forms,  the 
maternal  family  and  the  paternal  family,  arose  out  of 
natural  conditions,  and  therefore  they  may  be  said  to 
represent  two  great  stages  in  the  social  evolution  of  man. 
It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  that  civilized  societies 


Il8  THE   FORMS   OF  THE   FAMILY 

are  now  apparently  entering  upon  a  third  stage,  in  which 
there  will  be  relative  equality  given  to  the  male  and  the 
female  elements  that  go  to  make  up  the  family. 

Polyandry.  —  We  must  notice  now  the  various  forms  of 
marriage  by  which  the  family  has  been  constituted  among 
different  peoples  and  in  different  ages.  Marriage,  like 
the  family  itself,  is  variable,  and  an  indefinite  number  of 
forms  may  be  found  among  various  peoples.  We  shall 
notice,  however,  only  the  three  leading  forms,  —  polyandry, 
polygyny,  and  monogamy,  —  and  attempt  to  show  the 
natural  conditions  which  favor  each.  It  is  evident  that 
if  we  assume  that  the  primitive  form  of  the  family  was  that 
of  a  simple  pairing  monogamy,  the  burden  is  laid  upon 
us  to  show  how  such  different  types  as  polyandry  and 
polygyny  arose. 

Polyandry,  or  the  union  of  one  woman  with  several 
men,  is  a  relatively  rare  form  of  marriage  and  the  family, 
found  only  in  certain  isolated  regions  of  the  world.  It  is 
particularly  found  in  Tibet,  a  barren  and  inhospitable 
plateau  lying  north  of  India  and  adjoining  China  proper  on 
the  west.  It  is  also  found  in  certain  other  isolated  moun- 
tainous regions  in  India,  and  down  to  recent  times  also  in 
Arabia.  In  none  of  these  places  does  it  exist  exclusively, 
but  rather  alongside  of  monogamy  and  perhaps  other 
forms  of  the  family.  Thus  in  Tibet  the  upper  classes 
practice  polygyny  and  monogamy,  while  among  the  lower 
classes  we  find  polyandry  and  monogamy.  In  all  these 
regions  where  polyandry  occurs,  moreover,  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  conditions  of  life  are  harsh  and  severe. 
Tibet  is  an  exceptionally  inhospitable  region,  with  a 
climate  of  arctic  rigor,  the  people  living  mainly  by  grazing. 


THE   FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY  119 

Under  such  circumstances  it  is  conceivably  difficult  for 
one  man  to  support  and  protect  a  family.  At  any  rate, 
the  form  of  polyandry  which  we  find  in  Tibet  suggests  that 
such  economic  conditions  may  have  been  the  main  cause 
of  its  existence.  Ordinarily  in  Tibet  a  polyandrous  family 
is  formed  by  an  older  brother  taking  a  wife,  and  then, 
admitting  his  younger  brothers  into  partnership  with  him. 
The  older  brother  is  frequently  absent  from  home,  looking 
after  the  flocks,  and  in  his  absence  one  of  the  younger 
brothers  assumes  the  headship  of  the  family.  Under 
such  circumstances  we  can  see  how  the  natural  human 
instincts  which  would  oppose  polyandry  under  ordinary 
circumstances,  namely,  the  jealousy  of  the  male,  might 
become  greatly  modified,  or  cease  to  act  altogether.  Cer- 
tain other  conditions  besides  economic  ones  might  also 
favor  the  existence  of  polyandry,  such  as  the  scarcity 
of  women.  Summing  up,  we  can  say,  then,  that  this  rare 
form  of  the  family  seems  to  have  as  its  causes:  (i)  In  bar- 
ren and  inhospitable  countries  the  labor  of  one  man  is  some- 
times found  not  sufficient  to  support  a  family.  (2)  Also 
there  probably  exists  in  such  regions  an  excess  of  males. 
This  might  be  due  to  one  of  two  causes :  First,  the  practice 
of  exposing  female  infants  might  lead  to  a  scarcity  ofj 
women;  secondly,  in  such  regions  it  is  found  that  from 
causes  not  well  understood  a  larger  number  of  males  are 
born.  It  may  be  noted  as  a  general  fact  that  when  the 
conditions  of  life  are  hard  in  human  society,  owing  to 
famine,  war,  or  barrenness  of  the  soil,  a  larger  number  of 
male  births  take  place.  We  may  therefore  infer  that  this 
would  disturb  the  numerical  proportion  of  the  sexes  in 
such  regions.  (3)  A  third  cause  may  be  suggested  as 


120  THE   FORMS   OF  THE   FAMILY 

having  something  to  do  with  the  matter,  namely,  that 
habits  of  close  inbreeding,  or  intermarriage,  might  perhaps 
tend  to  overcome  the  natural  repugnance  to  such  a  rela- 
tion. Moreover,  close  inbreeding  also,  as  the  experiments 
of  stock-breeders  show,  would  tend  to  produce  a  surplus 
of  male  births,  and  so  would  act  finally  in  the  same  way 
as  the  second  cause. 

Polygyny, l  or  the  union  of  one  man  with  several  women, 
is  a  much  more  common  form  of  marriage.  It  is,  in  fact, 
to  be  found  sporadically  among  all  peoples  and  in  all 
ages.  It  has  perhaps  existed  at  least  sporadically  from 
the  most  primitive  times,  because  we  find  that  at  least 
one  of  the  anthropoid  apes,  namely,  the  gorilla,  practices 
it  to  some  extent.  It  is  manifest,  however,  that  it  could 
not  have  existed  to  any  extent  among  primitive  men, 
except  where  food  supply  was  exceptionally  abundant.  In 
the  main,  polygyny  is  a  later  development,  then,  which 
comes  in  when  some  degree  of  wealth  has  been  accumulated, 
that  is,  sufficient  food  supply  to  make  it  possible  for  one 
man  to  support  several  families.  Polygyny  came  in  espe- 
cially after  women  came  to  be  captured  in  war  and  kept 
as  slaves  or  wives.  The  practice  of  wife  capture,  indeed, 
and  the  honor  attached  to  the  custom,  had  much  to  do 
in  making  the  practice  of  polygyny  common  among  cer- 
tain peoples.  Wherever  slavery  has  existed,  we  may  also 
note,  polygyny,  either  in  its  legal  form  or  in  its  illegal  form 
of  concubinage,  has  flourished.  Polygyny,  indeed,  is  closely 

1  The  word  "polygamy"  is  too  broad  in  its  meaning  to  use  as  a  scientific 
term  for  this  form  of  the  family.  "  Polygamy ' '  comes  from  two  Greek  words 
meaning  "much  married;"  hence  it  includes  "polyandry"  (having  several 
husbands)  and  "polygyny"  (having  several  wives). 


THE    FORMS  OF   THE   FAMILY  121 

related  with  the  institution  of  slavery  and  is  practically 
coextensive  with  it.  In  the  ancient  world  it  existed 
among  the  Hebrews  and  among  practically  all  of  the  peoples 
of  the  Orient,  and  also  sporadically  among  our  own  Teu- 
tonic ancestors.  In  modern  times  polygyny  still  exists 
among  the  Mohammedan  peoples  and  to  a  greater  or  less 
degree  among  all  semicivilized  peoples.  It  exists  in 
China  in  the  form  of  concubinage.  It  even  exists  in  the 
United  States,  for  much  evidence  seems  to  show  that 
the  Utah  Mormons  still  practice  polygyny  to  some  extent, 
although  it  may  be  doubted  whether  polygynous  unions 
are  being  formed  among  them  at  the  present  time. 

Two  facts  always  need  to  be  borne  in  mind  regarding 
polygyny:  First,  that  wherever  it  is  practiced  it  is  rela- 
tively confined  to  the  upper  and  wealthy  classes,  for  the 
reason  that  the  support  of  more  than  one  family  is  some- 
thing which  only  the  wealthy  classes  in  a  given  society 
could  assume.  Secondly,  it  follows  that  under  ordinary 
circumstances  only  a  small  minority  of  a  given  popula- 
tion practice  polygyny,  even  in  countries  in  which  it  is 
sanctioned.  In  Mohammedan  countries  like  Turkey  and 
Egypt,  for  example,  it  is  estimated  that  not  more  than  five 
per  cent  of  the  families  are  polygynous,  while  in  other 
regions  the  percentage  seems  to  be  still  smaller.  The 
reason  for  this  is  not  only  the  economic  one  just  mentioned, 
but  that  everywhere  the  sexes  are  relatively  equal  in  num- 
bers, and  therefore  it  is  impossible  for  polygyny  to  become  a 
widespread  general  custom.  If  some  men  have  more  than 
one  wife  it  is  evident  that  other  men  will  probably  have  to 
forego  marriage  entirely.  This  is  not  saying  that  under 
certain  circumstances,  namely,  the  importation  of  large 


122  THE   FORMS   OF  THE   FAMILY 

numbers  of  women,  a  higher  per  cent  of  polygynous  families 
may  not  exist.  It  is  said  that  among  the  negroes  on  the 
west  coast  of  Africa  the  number  of  polygynous  families 
reaches  as  high  as  fifty  per  cent,  owing  to  the  fact  that 
female  slaves  are  largely  imported  into  that  district,  and 
that  they  serve  not  only  as  wives,  but  do  the  bulk  of  the 
agricultural  labor,  the  male  negro  preferring  female  slaves, 
who  can  do  his  work  and  be  wives  at  the  same  time,  to  male 
slaves.  But  such  cases  as  these  are  altogether  exceptional 
and  manifestly  could  not  become  general. 

Summing  up,  we  may  say  that  the  causes  of  polygyny 
are,  then: 

(1)  First  of  all,  the  brutal  lust  of  man.     No  doubt  man's 
animal  propensities  have  had  much  to  do  with  the  existence  of 
this  form  of  the  family.     Nevertheless,  while  male  sensuality 
is  at  the  basis  of  polygyny,  it  would  be  a  mistake  to  think  that 
sensuality  is  an  adequate  explanation  in  all  cases.     On  the 
contrary,  we  find  many  other  causes,  chiefly,  perhaps,  eco- 
nomic, operating  also  to  favor  the  development  of  polygyny. 

(2)  One  of  these  is  wife  capture,  as  we  have  already 
seen.     The  captured  women  in  war  were  held  as  trophies 
and  slaves,  and  later  became  wives  or  concubines.     Among 
all  peoples  at  a  certain  stage  the  honor  of  wife  capture  has 
alone  been  a  prolific  cause  of  polygyny. 

(3)  Another  cause,  after  slavery  became  developed,  was 
the  high  value  set  on  women  as  laborers.     Among  many 
barbarous  peoples  the  women  do  the  main  part  of  the  work. 
They  are  more  tractable  as  slaves,  and  consequently  a  high 
value  is  set  upon  their  labor.     As  we  have  already  seen, 
these  female  slaves  usually  serve  at  the  same  time  as  con- 
cubines, if  not  legal  wives  of  their  masters. 


THE   FORMS   OF   THE   FAMILY  123 

(4)  Another  cause  which  we  can  perhaps  hardly  appre- 
ciate at  the  present  time  is  the  high  valuation  set  on  chil- 
dren.    We  see  this  cause  opera  ting  particularly  in  the  case 
of  the  patriarchs  of  the  Old  Testament.      Under  the  pa- 
triarchal family  great  value  was  set  upon  children  as  neces- 
sary to  continue  the  family  line.     Where  the  device  of 
adoption  was  not  resorted  to,  therefore,  in  case  of  barren- 
ness or  the  birth  exclusively  of  female  children,  nothing 
was  more  natural  than  that  polygyny  should  be  resorted 
to  in  order  to  insure  the  family  succession.      In  the  pa- 
triarchal family  also  a  high  valuation  was  necessarily  set 
upon   children,   because   the   larger   the   family  grew  the 
stronger  it  was. 

(5)  Finally,  religion  came  to  sanction  polygyny.    The 
religious  sanction  of  polygyny  cannot  be  looked  upon  as 
one  of  its  original  causes,  but  when  once  established  it  re- 
acted powerfully  to  reenforce  and  maintain  the  institution. 
How  the  religious  sanction  came  about  we  can  readily  see 
when  we  remember  that  very  commonly  religions  confuse 
the  practice  of  the  nobility  with  what  is  noble  or  com- 
mendable morally.     The  polygynous  practices  of  the  no- 
bility, therefore,  under  certain  conditions  came  to  receive 
the  sanction  of  religion.     When  this  took  place  polygyny 
became   firmly   established   as   a   social  institution,   very 
difficult  to  uproot,    as    all    the    experience    of    Christian 
missionaries  among  peoples  practicing  polygyny  goes  to 
show.     We  may  note  also  the  general  truth,  that  while 
religion  does  not  originate  human  institutions  or  the  forms 
of  human  association,  it  is  preeminently  that  which  gives 
fixity  and  stability  to  institutions  through  the  supernatural 
sanction  that  it  accords  them. 


124  THE   FORMS   OF  THE   FAMILY 

Some  judgment  of  the  social  value  of  polygyny  may  not 
be  out  of  place  in  connection  with  this  subject.  Admit- 
ting, as  all  students  of  social  history  must,  that  in  certain 
times  and  places  the  polygynous  form  of  family  has  been 
advantageous,  has  served  the  interests  of  social  survival 
and  even  of  civilization,  yet  viewed  from  the  standpoint 
of  present  society  it  seems  that  our  judgment  of  polygyny 
must  be  wholly  unfavorable.  In  the  first  place,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  polygyny  is  essentially  an  institution  of  bar- 
barism. It  arose  largely  through  the  practice  of  wife 
capture  and  the  keeping  of  female  slaves.  While  often 
adjusted  to  the  requirements  of  barbarous  societies,  it 
seems  in  no  way  adjusted  to  a  high  civilization.  Polygyny, 
indeed,  must  necessarily  rest  upon  the  subjection  and  deg- 
radation of  women.  Necessarily  the  practice  of  polygyny 
must  disregard  the  feelings  of  women,  for  women  are 
jealous  creatures  as  well  as  men.  No  high  regard  for  the 
feelings  of  women,  therefore,  would  be  consistent  with  the 
practice  of  polygyny.  Finally,  all  the  evidence  that  we 
have  goes  to  show  that  under  polygyny  children  are  neg- 
lected, and,  at  least  from  the  standpoint  of  a  high  civili- 
zation, inadequately  socialized.  This  must  necessarily  be 
so,  because  in  the  polygynous  family  the  care  of  the  chil- 
dren'rests  almost  entirely  with  the  mother.  While  we 
have  no  statistics  of  infant  mortality  from  polygynous 
countries,  it  seems  probable  that  infant  mortality  is  high, 
and  social  workers  in  communities  with  polygynous  fam- 
ilies quite  generally  testify  that  delinquent  children  are 
especially  found  in  such  households.  Fatherhood,  in  the 
full  sense  of  the  word,  can  hardly  be  said  to  exist  under 
polygyny.  p  114 


THE   FORMS  OF  THE   FAMILY  125 

Those  philosophers,  like  Schopenhauer,  who  advocate 
the  legalizing  of  polygyny  in  civilized  countries,  are  hardly 
worth  replying  to.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  any  widespread 
practice  of  polygyny  in  civilized  communities  would  lead 
to  a  reversion  to  the  moral  standards  of  barbarism  in  many 
if  not  in  all  matters.  That  polygyny  is  still  a  burning 
question  in  the  United  States  of  the  twentieth  century  is 
merely  good  evidence  that  we  are  not  very  far  removed 
yet  from  barbarism. 

Monogamy,  as  we  have  already  seen,  has  been  the 
prevalent  form  of  marriage  in  all  ages  and  in  all  countries. 
Wherever  other  forms  have  existed  monogamy  has  existed 
alongside  of  them  as  the  dominant,  even  though  perhaps 
not  the  socially  honored,  form.  All  other  forms  of  the 
family  must  be  regarded  as  sporadic  variations,  on  the 
whole  unsuited  to  long  survival,  because  essentially  incon- 
sistent with  the  nature  of  human  society.  In  civilized 
Europe  monogamy  has  been  the  only  form  of  the  family 
sanctioned  for  ages  by  law,  custom,  and  religion.  The  lead- 
ing peoples  of  the  world,  therefore,  practice  monogamy, 
and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  connection  between  monogamy 
and  progressive  forms  of  civilization  is  not  an  accident. 

What,  then,  are  the  social  advantages  of  monogamy 
which  favor  the  development  of  a  higher  type  of  culture? 
These  advantages  are  numerous,  but  perhaps  the  most 
important  of  them  can  be  grouped  under  six  heads. 

(i)  The  number  of  the  two  sexes,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  is  everywhere  approximately  equal.  This  means 
that  monogamy  is  in  harmony  with  the  biological  con- 
ditions that  exist  in  the  human  species.  The  equal  number 
of  the  two  sexes  has  probably  been  established  through 


126          THE  FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY 

natural  selection.  Why  nature  should  favor  this  pro- 
portion of  the  sexes  can  perhaps  be  in  part  understood 
when  we  reflect  that  with  such  proportion  there  can  be 
the  largest  number  of  family  groups,  and  hence  the  best 
possible  conditions  for  the  rearing  of  offspring. 

(2)  Monogamy   secures   the   superior   care   of   children 
in  at  least  two  respects.     First,  it  very  greatly  decreases 
mortality   in    children,    because   under   monogamy   both 
husband  and  wife  unite  in  their  care.     Again,  monogamy 
secures  the  superior  upbringing  and,  therefore,  the  superior 
socialization   of   the   child.     In   the   monogamous   family 
much  greater  attention  can  be  given  to  the  training  of 
children  by  both  parents.     In  other  forms  of  the  family 
not  only  is  the  death  rate  higher  among  children,  but  from 
the  point  of  view  of  modern  civilization,  at  least,  they  are 
inferiorly  socialized. 

(3)  The  monogamic   family  alone  produces   affections 
and  emotions  of  the  higher  type.     It  is  only  in  the  mono- 
gamic family  that  the  highest  type  of  altruistic  affection 
can  be  cultivated.     It  is  difficult  to  understand,  for  exam- 
ple, how  anything  like  unselfish  affection  between  husband 
and  wife  can  exist  under  polygyny.     Under  monogamy, 
husband  and  wife  are  called  upon  to  sacrifice  selfish  desires 
in  the  mutual  care  of  children.     Monogamy  is,  therefore, 
fitted  as  a  form  of  the  family  to  foster  altruism  in  the  highest 
degree,  and,  as  we  have    seen,  the    higher   the    type  of 
altruism  produced  by  the  family  life,  the  higher  the  type 
of   the   social  life   generally,   other   things   being    equal. 
It  is  especially  to  the  credit  of  monogamy  that  it  has 
created  fatherhood  in  the  fullest  sense   of  the  term,  and 
therefore  taught  the  male  element  in  human  society   the 


THE   FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY  127 

value  of  service  and  self-sacrifice.  Under  polygynous  con- 
ditions the  father  cannot  devote  himself  to  any  extent  to  his 
children  or  to  any  one  wife,  since  he  is  really  the  head  of  several 
households,  and  therefore,  as  we  have  already  noted,  father- 
hood in  the  fullest  sense  scarcely  exists  under  polygyny. 

(4)  Under   monogamy,    moreover,    all   family   relation- 
ships are  more  definite  and  strong,  and  thus  family  bonds, 

'and  ultimately  social  bonds,  are  stronger.  In  the  polygy- 
1  nous  household  the  children  of  the  different  wives  are 
half  brothers  and  half  sisters,  hence  family  affection  has 
little  chance  to  develop  among  them,  and  as  a  matter  of 
fact  between  children  of  different  wives  there  is  constant 
pulling  and  hauling.  Moreover,  because  the  children  in  a 
polygynous  family  are  only  half  brothers  this  immensely 
complicates  relationships,  and  even  the  line  of  ancestors. 
Legal  relations  and  all  blood  relationships  are,  therefore, 
more  entangled.  It  is  no  inconsiderable  social  merit  of 
monogamy  that  it  makes  blood  relationships  simple  and 
usually  perfectly  definite.  All  of  this  has  an  effect  upon 
society  at  large,  because  the  cohesive  power  of  blood 
relationship,  even  in  modern  societies,  is  something  still 
worth  taking  into  account.  But  of  course  the  main 
influence  of  all  this  is  to  be  found  in  the  family  group 
itself,  because  it  is  only  under  such  simple  and  definite 
relations  as  we  find  in  the  monogamous  family  that  there 
is  ample  stimulus  to  develop  the  higher  family  affections. 

(5)  From  all  this  it  follows  that  monogamy  favors  the 
development  of  high  types  of  religion  and  morals,  family 
affection  being  an  indispensable  root  of  any  high  type  of 
ethical  religion.     That  form  of  the  family  which  favors 
the  development  of  the  highest  type  of  this  affection  will, 


128  THE   FORMS   OF  THE   FAMILY 

therefore,  favor  the  development  of  the  highest  type  of 
religion.  We  see  this  even  more  plainly,  perhaps,  in  ancient 
times  than  in  the  present  time,  because  it  was  monogamy 
that  favored  the  development  of  ancestor  worship  through 
making  the  line  of  ancestors  dear  and  definite,  and  thus 
monogamy  helped  to  develop  this  type  of  religion,  which » 
became  the  basis  of  still  higher  types. 

(6)  Monogamy  not  only  favors  the  preservation  of  the 
lives  of  the  children,  but  also  favors  the  preservation  of 
the  lives  of  the  parents,  because  it  is  only  under  monogamy 
that  we  find  aged  parents  cared  for  by  their  children  to 
any  extent.  Under  polygyny  the  wife  who  has  grown 
old  is  discarded  for  a  young  wife,  and  usually  ends  her 
days  in  bitterness.  The  father,  too,  under  polygyny  is 
rarely  cared  for  by  the  children,  because  the  polygynous 
household  has  never  given  the  opportunity  for  close  affec- 
tions between  parents  and  children.  That  monogamy, 
therefore,  helps  to  lengthen  life  through  favoring  care  of 
parents  by  children  in  old  age  is  an  element  in  its  favor, 
for  it  adds  not  a  little  to  the  happiness  of  life,  and  so  to  the 
strength  of  social  bonds,  that  people  do  not  have  to  look 
forward  to  a  cheerless  and  friendless  old  age. 

In  brief,  the  monogamic  family  presents  such  superior 
unity  and  harmony  from  every  point  of  view  that  it  is 
much  more  fitted  to  produce  a  higher  type  of  culture. 
From  whatever  point  of  view  we  may  look  at  it,  therefore, 
there  are  many  reasons  why  civilized  societies  cannot 
afford  to  sanction  any  other  form  of  the  family  than  that 
of  monogamy. 

The  Causes  which  Determine  the  Form  of  the  Family 
and  Society.  —  As  we  have  already  seen,  the  form  of  the 


THE  FORMS  OF  THE  FAMILY  1 29 

family  is  undoubtedly  greatly  influenced  by  the  form  of 
industry.  This  is  so  markedly  the  case  that  some  sociolo- 
gists and  economists  have  claimed  that  the  form  of  the 
family  life  is  but  a  reflection  of  the  form  of  the  industrial 
life;  that  the  family  in  its  changes  and  variations  slavishly 
follows  the  changes  in  economic  conditions.  That  such 
an  extreme  view  as  this  is  a  mistake  can  readily  be  seen 
from  a  brief  review  of  the  causes  which  have  produced 
certain  types  of  family  life  in  certain  periods.  Thus, 
the  maternal  type  of  the  family  cannot  be  said  by  any 
means  to  have  been  determined  by  economic  conditions. 
On  the  contrary,  primarily  the  maternal  family,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  determined  by  certain  intellectual  concep- 
tions, namely,  the  absence  of  knowledge  of  the  physio- 
logical connection  between  father  and  child,  though  the 
economic  conditions  of  primitive  life  tended  powerfully 
to  continue  the  maternal  family  long  after  intellectual 
conditions  had  changed.  Again,  it  has  been  said  that  the 
patriarchal  family  owed  its  existence  entirely  to  a  form  of 
industry,  namely,  pastoral  industry,  but,  as  we  have  seen, 
other  factors  also  operated  to  produce  the  patriarchal  type 
of  the  family,  such  as  war,  religion,  and  perhaps  man's 
inherent  desire  to  dominate.  Moreover,  religion  continued 
the  patriarchal  family  in  many  cases  long  after  pastoral 
industry  had  ceased  to  be  the  chief  economic  form. 

So  too  with  the  forms  of  marriage.  While  polygyny 
has  been  claimed  to  be  due  entirely  to  economic  causes, 
we  have  seen  that  these  so-called  economic  causes 
have  only  been  the  opportunities  for  the  polygynous 
instincts  of  man  to  assert  themselves.  These  polygynous 
instincts  of  man  have  asserted  themselves  more  or  less 


13°  THE  FORMS   OF  THE  FAMILY 

under  all  conditions  of  society,  but  under  certain  condi- 
tions, when  there  was  an  accumulation  of  wealth,  and 
especially  with  the  institution  of  slavery,  they  had  greater 
opportunity  to  assert  themselves  than  elsewhere.  Thus 
the  basic  cause  of  polygyny  is  not  economic,  but  psycholog- 
ical; and  given  certain  moral  and  economic  conditions  of 
society,  these  polygynous  tendencies  assert  themselves. 
Monogamy,  on  the  other  hand,  is  fundamentally  deter- 
mined by  the  biological  fact  of  the  numerical  equality  of  the 
sexes.  This  is  doubtless  the  main  reason  why  monogamy 
has  been  the  prevalent  form  of  the  family  everywhere. 
Certain  moral  and  psychological  factors  which  go  along 
with  the  development  of  higher  types  of  culture  have, 
however,  powerfully  reenforced  monogamy.  It  is  doubt- 
ful if  economic  conditions  can  to  any  extent  be  shown  to 
have  equally  reenforced  the  monogamic  life. 

Our  conclusion  must  be,  then,  that  the  family  and  all 
other  forms  of  association  are  determined,  not  by  the  in- 
dustrial life  alone,  though  that  is  very  influential,  but  by 
all  the  active  factors  in  human  association,  geographic, 
economic,  intellectual,  and  moral  or  cultural. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

DEALEY,  The  Family  in  Its  Sociological  Aspects,  Chaps.  II,  HE. 

GILLETTE,  The  Family  and  Society,  Chap.  III. 

WESTERMARCK,  History  of  Human  Marriage,  Chaps.  XX-XXIL 

For  more  extended  reading: 

HOWARD,  History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  Vol.  I,  Chaps.  II,  IV. 

PARSONS,  The  Family,  Chap.  VII. 

WAKE,  Development  of  Marriage  and  Kinship,  Chaps.  IV-VII. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 

WHILE  we  cannot  enter  into  the  historical  evolution  of 
the  family  as  an  institution  among  the  different  civilized 
peoples,  still  it  will  be  profitable  for  us  to  consider  the 
history  of  the  family  among  some  single  representative 
people  in  order  that  we  may  see  the  forces  which  have 
made  and  unmade  the  family  life,  and  incidentally  also  to 
a  great  degree,  the  general  social  life  of  that  people.  We 
shall  select  the  ancient  Romans  as  the  people  among  whom 
we  can  thus  best  study  in  outline  the  development  of  the 
family.  While  the  family  life  of  the  ancient  Hebrews  is 
of  particular  interest  to  us  because  of  the  close  connec- 
tion of  our  religion  and  ethics  with  that  of  the  Hebrews, 
yet  in  the  family  life  of  the  ancient  Romans  constructive 
and  destructive  factors  are  more  clearly  marked  and, 
therefore,  the  study  of  ancient  Roman  family  life  is  best 
fitted  to  bring  out  those  factors.  The  ancient  Romans 
were  among  the  earliest  civilized  of  the  Aryan  peoples, 
and  their  institutions  are,  therefore,  of  peculiar  interest 
to  us  as  representing  approximately  the  early  Aryan  type. 
What  we  shall  say  concerning  Roman  family  life,  more- 
over, will  apply,  with  some  modifications  and  qualifica- 
tions, to  the  family  life  of  other  Aryan  peoples,  especially 
the  Greeks.  The  Greeks  and  the  Romans,  indeed,  were 
so  closely  related  in  their  early  culture  that  for  the  purpose 
of  institutional  history  they  may  be  considered  practically 
one  people.  Without  any  attempt,  then,  to  sketch  the 


132        HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 

history  of  the  family  as  an  institution  in  general,  let  us 
note  some  of  the  salient  features  of  the  family  life  of  the 
ancient  Romans. 

The  Early  Roman  Family.  —  (i)  Ancestor  Worship  as  the 
Basis  of  the  Early  Roman  Family.  What  we  have  said 
thus  far  indicates  a  close  connection  between  the  family 
life  and  religion  among  all  peoples.  This  was  especially 
true  of  the  early  Romans.  It  may  be  said,  indeed,  that 
ancestor  worship  was  the  constitutive  principle  of  their 
family  life.  Among  them  the  family  seemed  to  have  lost 
in  part  its  character  as  a  purely  social  institution  and  to 
have  become  specialized  into  a  religious  institution.  At 
any  rate,  the  early  Roman  family  existed  very  largely  for 
the  sake  of  perpetuating  the  worship  of  ancestors.  Of 
course,  ancestor  worship  could  have  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  origin  of  the  family  life  among  the  Romans. 
The  type  of  their  family  life  was  patriarchal,  and  we  have 
already  noticed  the  causes  which  brought  about  the 
existence  of  the  patriarchal  family.  But  while  ancestor 
worship  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  origin  of  the  family, 
once  it  was  thoroughly  established  it  became  the  basis 
of  the  family  life  and  transformed  the  family  as  an  insti- 
tution. 

The  early  Romans  shared  certain  superstitions  with  many 
primitive  peoples,  which,  if  not  the  basis  of  ancestor  wor- 
ship, powerfully  reenforced  it.  They  believed,  for  exam- 
ple, that  the  soul  continued  in  existence  after  death,  and 
that  persons  would  be  unhappy  unless  buried  in  tombs 
with  suitable  offerings,  and  that  if  left  unburied,  or  without 
suitable  offerings,  the  souls  of  these  persons  would  return 
to  torment  the  living.  Inasmuch  as  in  the  patriarchal 


HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY          133 

family  only  sons  could  perform  religious  rites,  that  is, 
could  make  offerings  to  the  departed  spirits,  these  super- 
stitions acted  as  a  powerful  stimulus  to  preserve  the  family 
in  order  that  offerings  might  continue  to  be  made  at  the 
graves  of  ancestors.  / 

Thus,  as  we  have  already  said,  among  the  early  Romans 
the  family  was  practically  a  religious  institution  with' 
ancestor  worship  as  its  constitutive  principle.  It  is  sup- 
posed by  de  Coulanges  that  in  the  earliest  times  the  dead 
ancestors  were  buried  beneath  the  hearth.  At  any  rate, 
the  hearth  was  the  place  where  offerings  were  made  to 
the  departed  ancestors,  and  the  flame  on  the  hearth  was 
believed  to  represent  the  spirit  of  the  departed.  The 
house  under  such  circumstances  became  a  temple  and  the 
whole  atmosphere  of  the  family  life  was  necessarily  a 
religious  one. 

(2)  The,  Authority  in  the  Early  Roman  Family  was  vested, 
as  in  all  partiarchal  families,  in  the  father  or  eldest  living 
male  of  the  family  group.  Under  ancestor  worship  he 
became  the  living  representative  of  the  departed  ances- 
tors, the  link  between  the  living  and  the  dead.  Here  we 
may  note  that  the  family  was  not  considered  as  constituted 
simply  of  its  living  members,  but  that  it  included  also  all 
of  its  dead  members.  Inasmuch  as  the  dead  were  more 
numerous  and  were  thought  to  be  more  powerful  than  the 
living,  they  were  by  far  the  more  important  element  in  the 
life  of  the  family.  The  position  of  the  house  father,  as 
representative  of  the  departed  ancestors,  and  as  the  link  be- 
tween the  living  and  the  dead,  naturally  made  his  authority 
almost  divine.  Hence,  the  house  father  was  himself,  then, 
almost  a  deity,  having  absolute  power  over  all  persons 


134        HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE   FAMILY 

within  the  group,  even  to  the  extent  of  life  and  death.  This 
absolute  power,  which  was  known  in  the  early  Roman 
family  as  the  "  patria  potestas,"  could  not,  however,  be 
exercised  arbitrarily.  The  house  father,  as  representative 
of  the  departed  ancestors,  was  necessarily  controlled  by 
religious  scruples  and  traditions.  It  was  impossible  for 
him  to  act  other  than  for  what  he  believed  to  be  the  will 
of  the  ancestors.  Disobedience  to  him  was,  therefore, 
disobedience  to  the  divine  ancestors,  and  hence  was  sacri- 
legious. 

(3)  Relationship  in  the  Early  Roman  Family  was  deter- 
mined by  community  of  worship,  inasmuch  as  only  descend- 
ants upon  the  male  side  could  perform  religious  rites,  and 
inasmuch   as   married  women   worshiped    the   household 
gods  of  their  husbands'  ancestors ;  therefore,  only  descend- 
ants on  the  male  side  could  worship  the  same  ancestors 
and  were  relatives  in  the  full  religious  and  legal  sense. 
These  were  known  as  "  agnates."     Later,  some  relationship 
on  the  mother's  side  came  to  be  recognized,  but  relatives 
on  the  mother's  side  were  known  as  "  cognates,"  and  for 
a  long  time  property  could  not  pass  to  them.     Indeed,  in 
the  earliest  times  the  property  of  the  family,  as  we  have 
already  implied,  was  kept  as  a  unit,  held  in  trust  by  the 
eldest  living  member  of  the  family  group  for  the  good  of 
all  the  family.     In  other  words,  the  house  father  in  earliest 
times  did  not  possess  the  right  to  make  a  will  but  the 
property  of  the  family  passed  intact  from  him  to  his  eldest 
male  heir. 

(4)  The  Marriage  Ceremony  among  the  Early  Romans 
was  necessarily  of  a  religious  character.     It  was  consti- 
tuted essentially  of  the  induction  of  the  bride  into  the  wor- 


HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY          135 

ship  of  her  husband's  ancestors.  But  before  this  could 
be  done  the  bride's  father  had  first  to  free  her  from  the 
worship  of  her  household  gods,  in  later  times  a  certifi- 
cate of  manumission  being  given  not  unlike  the  manumis- 
sion of  the  slave.  After  the  bride  had  been  released  from 
the  worship  of  her  father's  ancestors,  the  bridegroom  and  his 
friends  brought  her  to  his  father's  house,  where  a  ceremony 
of  adoption  was  practically  gone  through  with,  adopting 
the  bride  into  the  family  of  her  husband.  The  essence  of 
this  ceremony,  as  we  have  already  said,  was  the  induction 
of  the  bride  into  the  worship  of  her  husband's  ancestors 
through  their  both  making  an  offering  on  the  family  hearth 
and  eating  a  sacrificial  meal  together.  After  that  the  wife 
worshiped  at  her  husband's  altar  and  had  no  claim  upon 
the  household  gods  of  her  father. 

(5)  Divorce.    Under  such  circumstances  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  marriage  was  practically  indissoluble.    A  wife 
who  was  driven  out  of  her  husband's  household  or  deserted 
was  without  family  gods  of  any  sort,  having  no  claim  upon 
those  of  her  husband,  and  became,  therefore,  a  social  out- 
cast.   Under  such  circumstances  it  is  not  surprising  that 
divorce  was  practically  unknown.     It  is  said,  indeed,  that 
for  five  hundred  and  twenty  years  after  Rome  was  founded 
there  was  not  a  single  divorce  in  Rome.    While  this  may 
be  an  exaggeration,  it  is  historically  certain  that  divorce 
was  so  rare  in  early  Rome  as  to  be  practically  unknown. 

(6)  Adoption.    In  case  of  a  failure  of  sons  to  be  born  there 
was  no  taking  of  a  second  wife,  as  among  the  Hebrews. 
Polygyny  was  unknown  in  early  Rome.    The  Roman  de- 
vice to  prevent  the  failure  of  the  family  succession  was 
adoption.    Younger  sons  of  other  families  were  adopted 


136        HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE   FAMILY 

if  no  sons  were  born,  and  these  adopted  sons,  taking  the 
family  name,  became  the  same  legally  as  sons  by  birth. 
Inasmuch  as  the  position  of  younger  sons  in  the  patriarchal 
household  was  not  an  enviable  one  there  was  never 
lack  of  candidates  for  the  position  of  eldest  son  in  some 
family  group  in  which  no  sons  had  been  born. 

Not  only  was  the  early  Roman  family  life  the  most 
stable  that  the  world  has  ever  known,  but  it  was  also  of  a 
relatively  pure  type.  Chastity  was  rigidly  enforced  among 
the  women,  but  of  course,  as  in  all  primitive  peoples,  was 
not  enforced  among  the  men.  Still  it  was  expected  that 
the  married  men  at  least  should  remain  relatively  faithful 
to  their  wives.  On  the  whole,  therefore,  the  early  Roman 
family  life  must  be  judged  to  have  been  of  a  singularly  high 
and  stable  type.  While  the  position  of  women  and  children 
in  the  early  Roman  family  was  one  of  subjection,  the  family 
itself  was  nevertheless  of  a  high  type. 

(7)  The  Decadence.  But  it  was  inevitable  that  this  type 
of  family  should  decay,  and  this  decay  began  comparatively 
early.  Inasmuch  as  the  early  Roman  family  was  based 
upon  ancestor  worship,  a  religion  which  was  fitted  for 
relatively  small  isolated  groups,  it  was  inevitable  that  the 
family  life  should  decay  with  this  ancestor  worship.  How 
early  the  decay  of  ancestor  worship  began  it  is  impossible 
to  say.  Perhaps  the  nature  gods,  Jupiter,  Venus,  and 
the  rest,  existed  alongside  of  ancestor  worship  from  the 
earliest  times.  At  any  rate,  we  find  their  worship  growing 
rapidly  within  the  period  of  authentic  history  and  under- 
mining the  domestic  worship,  while  at  a  still  later  period 
skeptical  philosophy  undermined  both  religions.  Along 
with  the  decay  of  ancestor  worship  went  many  economic 


HISTORICAL   DEVELOPMENT   OF   THE    FAMILY       137 

and  political  changes  which  marked  the  dissolution  of  the 
patriarchal  family.  Let  us  see  what  some  of  the  first  steps 
in  this  decadence  were. 

(8)  Steps  in  the  Decadence,  (a)  One  of  the  earliest  steps 
toward  the  breaking  down  of  the  patriarchal  family  which 
we  find  is  the  limiting  of  the  power  of  the  house  father. 
This  took  place  very  early  —  as  soon  as  the  Council  of 
Elders,  or  Senate,  was  formed  to  look  after  matters  of 
collective  interest.  Gradually  the  paternal  power  dimin- 
ished, until  it  was  confined  to  matters  concerning  the 
family  group  proper. 

(6)  A  second  step  was  when  the  right  to  make  a  will  was 
conceded.  This  right,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  exist  in 
the  earliest  Roman  times,  but  with  the  development  of 
property  and  of  a  more  complex  economic  life  the  house 
father  was  given  the  right  to  divide  his  property  among 
his  children,  at  first  only  on  the  male  side,  but  later  among 
any  of  his  children,  and  still  later  to  bequeath  it  to  whom 
he  pleased. 

(c)  Thus  women  came  to  be  given  the  right  to  hold 
property,  a  thing  which  was  unknown  in  the  earliest 
times;  and  becoming  property  holders,  their  other  rights 
in  many  respects  began  to  increase.  Originally  the  wife 
had  no  right  to  divorce  her  husband,  but  in  the  second 
century  B.C.  women  also  gained  the  right  of  divorcing 
their  husbands. 

(cT)  The  rights  of  children  were  increased  along  with 
the  rights  of  women,  particularly  of  younger  children. 

(e)  The  right  of  plebeians  to  intermarry  with  the  noble 
families  became  recognized.  All  of  these  changes  we 
should  perhaps  regard  as  good  in  themselves,  but  they 


138        HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 

nevertheless  marked  the  disintegration  of  the  patriarchal 
family.  The  decay  of  the  family  life  did  not  stop  with 
these  changes,  however,  but  went  on  to  the  decay  of  the 
family  bonds  themselves. 

Later  Roman  Family  Life.  —  By  the  beginning  of  the 
Christian  era  the  relations  between  the  sexes  had  become 
very  loose.  Men  not  only  frequently  divorced  their 
wives,  but  women  frequently  divorced  their  husbands. 
Indeed,  a  complete  revolution  passed  over  the  Roman 
family.  Marriage  became  a  private  contract,  whereas, 
as  we  have  seen,  in  the  beginning  it  was  a  religious  bond. 
Many  loose  forms  of  marriage  were  developed,  which 
amounted  practically  to  temporary  marriages.  In  all  cases 
it  was  easy  for  a  husband  or  wife  to  divorce  each  other 
for  very  trivial  causes.  Among  certain  classes  of  Roman 
society  the  instability  of  the  family  became  so  great  that 
we  find  Seneca  saying  that  there  were  women  who  reckoned 
their  years  by  their  husbands,  and  Juvenal  recording  one 
woman  as  having  eight  husbands  in  five  years. 

Women  and  children  achieved  their  practical  emanci- 
pation, as  we  would  say.  Women,  especially,  were  free 
to  do  as  they  saw  fit.  Marriages  were  formed  and  dis- 
solved at  pleasure  among  certain  classes,  and  among  all 
classes  the  instability  of  the  family  life  had  become  very 
great. 

Along  with  all  this,  of  course,  went  a  growth  of  vice. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  the  Romans  of  the  first 
and  second  centuries  A.D.  approached  as  closely  to  a  con- 
dition of  promiscuity  as  any  civilized  people  of  which  we 
have  knowledge. 

Causes  of  the  Decadence.    When  we  examine  the  causes 


HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY         139 

of  this  great  revolution  in  Roman  family  life  from  the 
austere  morals  and  stable  family  of  the  early  Romans  to 
the  laxity  and  promiscuity  of  the  later  Romans,  we  find 
that  these  causes  can  perhaps  be  grouped  under  four  or 
five  principal  heads,  (i)  First  among  all  the  causes  we 
must  put  the  destruction  of  the  domestic  religion,  namely, 
ancestor  worship,  through  the  growth  of  nature  worship 
and  skeptical  philosophy.  The  destruction  of  the  domestic 
religion  necessarily  shattered  the  foundations  of  the  Roman 
family,  since,  as  we  have  already  seen,  there  was  the 
closest  connection  between  the  family  life  of  the  early 
Romans  and  ancestor  worship.  But  it  is  not  probable 
that  ancestor  worship  was  destroyed  merely  through  the 
growth  of  nature  worship  and  of  skeptical  philosophy. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  it  was  a  religion  which  was  mainly 
adapted  to  isolated  groups.  Changes  in  economic  and 
political  conditions,  therefore,  were  to  some  extent  prior 
to  the  decay  of  the  domestic  religion. 

(2)  Changes  in  economic  conditions,  that  is,  in  the  form 
of  industry,  were,  then,  among  the  more  important  causes 
of  the  decay  of  the  early  Roman  family.     The  patriarchal 
family  belonged  essentially  to  the  pastoral  stage  of  indus- 
try, and  as  soon  as  settled  agricultural  life,  commerce, 
and  manufacturing  industry  developed,  this  destroyed  the 
isolated  patriarchal  groups,  and  so  also  in  time  affected 
even  the  religion  which  was  their  basis.     Again,  the  growth 
of  cities  going  along  with  these  changes  in  the  methods  in 
obtaining  a  living  destroyed  the  old  conditions  under  which 
the  family  had  been  the  social  and  political  unit. 

(3)  We  have  therefore  as  a  third  cause  the  breaking  up 
of  old  political  conditions.    Family  groups  were  welded 


140        HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 

into  small  cities  and  the  authority  of  the  patriarch  was 
destroyed.  Legislation  designed  to  meet  the  new  social 
conditions,  especially  such  as  we  have  already  noted  in  the 
steps  of  the  decadence,  profoundly  affected  the  whole 
family  group  and  weakened  family  bonds. 

(4)  The  growth  of  divorce  and  of  vice  may  be  put  down 
as  a  fourth  cause  of  the  decay  of  the  Roman  family.  Some 
may  say  that  this  was  an  effect  of  the  decay  of  the  Roman 
family  rather  than  a  cause,  but  it  was  also  a  cause  as  well  as 
an  effect,  for  it  is  a  peculiarity  of  social  life  that  what  is  at 
one  stage  an  effect  reacts  to  become  a  cause  at  a  later  stage ; 
and  this  was  certainly  the  case  with  the  growth  of  divorce 
and  vice  in  Rome,  in  its  effect  upon  the  Roman  family. 
Moreover,  much  of  this  came  from  Greece  through  imita- 
tion. The  family  life  had  decayed  in  Greece  much  earlier 
than  it  had  in  Rome,  and  when  Rome  conquered  Greece 
it  annexed  its  vices  also.  While  the  most  radical  social 
changes  do  not  usually  come  about  merely  through  imi- 
tation, yet  the  imitation  of  a  foreign  people  is  frequently, 
in  the  history  of  a  particular  nation,  one  of  the  most  potent 
causes  in  bringing  about  social  changes.  It  was  certainly 
so  in  the  case  of  the  growth  of  divorce  and  vice  in  Rome. 

The  Causes  of  Social  Change.  —  We  see  that  the  causes 
of  the  decay  of  the  Roman  family  life  were  very  complex. 
This  is  true  of  all  important  social  changes.  It  is  impossible 
to  reduce  the  causes  of  these  changes  to  any  single  principle 
or  set  of  causes.  While  changes  in  economic  conditions  were 
undoubtedly  very  influential  in  bringing  about  the  profound 
changes  in  the  Roman  family,  still  we  have  no  ground  for  re- 
garding the  economic  changes  as  determinative  of  all  the 
rest.  We  know  as  yet  little  of  the  development  of  industry 


HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY         141 

in  antiquity.  What  little  we  do  know,  however,  furnishes 
good  ground  for  claiming  that  changes  in  the  methods  of 
getting  a  living  are  among  the  most  influential  causes  of 
social  change  in  general;  but  there  is  nothing  which  war- 
rants the  sweeping  generalization  of  Karl  Marx  and  his 
followers,  "that  the  method  of  the  production  of  the  mate- 
rial life  determines  the  social,  political,  and  spiritual  life 
s process  in  general."  On  the  contrary,  the  evolution  of  the 
Roman  family  clearly  shows  moral  and  psychological  fac- 
tors at  work  quite  independent  of  economic  causes.  The 
decay  of  ancestor  worship,  for  example,  cannot  be  wholly 
attributed  to  the  change  in  the  method  of  getting  a  living. 
The  very  growth  of  population  and  accompanying  changes 
in  political  conditions  probably  had  quite  as  much  to  do 
with  the  undermining  of  ancestor  worship.  Moreover, 
while  religion  may  not  be  an  original  determining  cause 
of  social  forms,  it  is,  nevertheless,  as  we  have  already 
seen,  especially  that  which  gives  them  stability  and  per- 
manency, so  much  so  that  the  life  history  of  a  culture 
is  frequently  the  life  history  of  a  religion.  The  decay 
of  religious  ideas  and  beliefs,  therefore,  from  any  cause, 
frequently  proves  the  important  element  working  for 
social  change  in  all  societies.  So,  too,  changes  in  politi- 
cal conditions,  especially  changes  in  law  through  new  leg- 
islation, frequently  prove  a  profound  modifying  influence 
in  societies.  Lastly,  there  are  certain  moral  causes  in- 
herent in  the  individual,  oftentimes  involving  perverted 
expressions  of  instinct,  which  lead  to  profound  social 
changes.  Such  was  the  vice  which  Rome  copied  very 
largely  from  Greece,  but  which  proved  the  final  solvent  in 
its  family  life. 


142        HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 

In  general  we  may  say,  then,  that  there  is  no  single 
principle  which  will  explain  the  evolution  of  the  family 
from  the  earliest  times  down  to  the  present.  Any  attempt 
to  reduce  the  evolution  of  the  family  to  a  single  principle, 
or  to  show  that  it  has  been  controlled  by  a  single  set  of 
causes,  must  inevitably  end  in  failure.  The  economic 
determinism  of  Marx  and  his  followers,  the  ideological 
conceptions  of  Hegel,  the  geographical  influences  of  Buckle 
and  his  school,  and  like  explanations,  are  all  found  wanting 
when  they  are  applied  to  the  actual  history  of  the  family. 
It  is  not  different  with  the  theories  of  recent  sociologists, 
who  would  strive  to  explain  all  social  changes  through  a 
single  principle.  Unilateral  sociological  principles,  such  as 
"Habit,"  "Environment,"  "Imitation,"  and  "Conscious- 
ness of  Kind"  will  not  go  further  in  explaining  the  changes 
in  the  family  life  than  some  of  the  older  principles  that  we 
have  just  mentioned.  Human  life  is,  indeed,  too  complex  to 
be  explained  in  terms  of  any  single  principle  or  any  single 
set  of  causes.  The  family  in  particular  is  an  organic  struc- 
ture which  responds  first  to  one  set  of  stimuli  and  then  to 
another.  Now  it  is  modified  by  economic  conditions,  now 
by  religious  ideas,  now  by  legislation,  now  by  imitation, 
and  so  on  through  the  whole  set  of  possible  stimuli  which 
may  impinge  upon  and  modify  the  activity  of  a  living 
organism.  So  it  is  with  all  institutions. 

The  Influence  of  Christianity  upon  the  Family.  —  While 
we  cannot  study  further  the  evolution  of  the  family  in  any 
detail,  still  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  avoid  too  great  dis- 
continuity, to  notice  in  a  few  sentences  the  influence  of 
Christianity  upon  the  family  in  Western  civilization. 

Early  Christianity,  as  we  have  already  seen,  found  the 


HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY         143 

family  life  of  the  Greco-Roman  world  demoralized.  The 
reconstruction  of  the  family  became,  therefore,  one  of  the 
first  tasks  of  the  new  religion,  and  while  other  circumstances 
may  have  aided  the  church  in  this  work,  still  on  the  whole 
it  was  mainly  the  influence  of  the  early  church  that  recon- 
stituted the  family  life.  From  the  first  the  church  worked 
to  abolish  divorce,  and  fought  as  evfl  such  vices  as  con- 
cubinage and  prostitution,  that  came  to  flourish  to  such  an 
extent  in  the  Pagan  world.  Only  very  slowly  did  the  early 
leaders  of  the  church  win  the  mass  of  the  people  to  accept- 
ing their  views  as  to  the  permanency  of  the  marriage  bond. 
In  order  to  aid  in  making  this  bond  more  stable  the  early 
church  recognized  marriage  as  one  of  the  sacraments,  and,  as 
implied,  steadily  opposed  the  idea  of  the  later  Roman  Law 
that  marriage  was  simply  a  private  contract.  The  result 
was,  eventually,  that  marriage  came  to  be  regarded  again 
as  a  religious  bond,  and  the  family  life  took  on  once  more  the 
aspect  of  great  stability.  After  the  church  had  come  fully 
into  power  in  the  Western  world,  legal  divorce  ceased  to  be 
recognized  and  legal  separation  was  substituted  in  its  stead. 
Thus  the  church  succeeded  in  reconstituting  the  family 
life  upon  a  stable  basis,  but  the  family  after  being  recon- 
stituted, was  of  a  semipatriarchal  type.  Nothing  was 
more  natural  than  this,  for  the  church  had  no  model  to  go 
by  except  the  paternal  family  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek 
and  Roman  civilization.  Nevertheless,  the  place  of  women 
and  children  in  this  semipatriarchal  religious  family  estab- 
lished by  the  church  was  higher  on  the  whole  than  in  the 
ancient  patriarchal  family.  The  church  put  an  end  to  the 
exposure  of  children,  which  had  been  common  in  Rome,  and 
protected  childhood  in  many  ways.  It  also  exalted  the 


144         HISTORICAL  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FAMILY 

place  of  woman  in  the  family,  though  leaving  her  subject 
to  her  husband.  The  veneration  of  the  Virgin  tended  par- 
ticularly to  give  women  an  honored  place  socially  and 
religiously.  Only  by  the  advocacy  and  practice  of  jis.cetic___ 
doctrines  may  the  early  church  be  said  to  have  detracted 
from  the  social  valuation  of  the  family.  On  the  whole 
the  reconstituting  of  the  family  by  the  church  must  be 
regarded  as  its  most  striking  social  work.  But  the  thing 
for  us  to  note  particularly  is  that  the  type  of  the  family 
life  created  by  the  church  was  what  we  might  call  a  semi- 
patriarchal  type,  in  which  the  importance  of  husband  and 
father  was  very  much  out  of  proportion  to  all  the  rest 
of  the  members  of  the  family  group.  It  was  this  semi- 
patriarchal  family  which  persisted  down  to  the  nineteenth 
century. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

GOODSELL,  The  Family  as  a  Social  and  Educational  Institution,  Chaps. 

IH-VI. 
FUSTEL  DE  COULANGES,  The  Ancient  City,  Chaps.  I-X. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

HEARN,  The  Aryan  Household. 
HOWARD,  History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions. 
LECKY,  History  of  European  Morals,  Chap.  V. 
SCHMIDT,  Social  Results  of  Early  Christianity. 

On  the  early  Hebrew  family: 

McCuRDY,  History,  Prophecy,  and  the  Monuments,  Vol.  II. 
SCHAEFFER,  Social  Legislation  of  the  Primitive  Semites,  Chaps.  I-III. 

On  the  early  Teutonic  family: 

GUMMERE,  Germanic  Origins,  Chaps.  V,  VI. 


CHAPTER  VIH 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

PASSING  over  the  changes  which  affected  the  family 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  and  the  still  more  striking  changes 
which  came  through  the  Reformation,  let  us  now  turn  to 
the  study  of  the  problem  of  the  family  in  the  modern  world. 

Peculiarities  of  Modern  Civilization.  —  We  must  note 
first  some  of  the  great  movements  which  have  made  modern 
civilization  what  it  is  in  its  moral  aspects.  The  first  of 
these  is  the  rise  of  individualism  and  the  decline  of  author- 
ity. This  movement  began,  or  rather  had  its  first  manifesta- 
tion, in  the  Protestant  Reformation.  In  the  latter  years 
of  the  eighteenth  century  it  culminated  in  the  French 
Revolution,  and  in  the  subsequent  rise  of  political  democ- 
racy among  all  European  peoples.  This  growth  of  in- 
dividualism and  decline  of  authority  has  continued  down 
to  the  present,  until  both  religious  and  political  authority 
are  perhaps  less  in  the  civilized  world  of  to-day  than 
ever  before  in  the  history  of  Western  civilization.  The 
result  of  this  upon  the  family  has  been  that  the  author- 
itative type  of  the  family  has  tended  to  disappear.  The 
religious  theory  of  the  family  which  prevailed  during 
the  Middle  Ages,  but  which  was  more  or  less  undermined 
by  the  Reformation,  has  given  place  among  large  classes  of 
the  population  to  the  view  that  marriage  is  a  private  con- 
tract. This  view  of  the  family  has  even  been  embodied 
to  a  large  extent  in  our  laws. 

145 


146  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN   FAMILY 

The  second  great  influence  which  has  affected  modern 
civilization  is  the  revolution  in  industry,  owing  to  the  in- 
vention of  machinery  and  the  rise  of  the  factory  system. 
This  has  tended,  as  we  have  already  seen,  to  destroy  the 
economic  functions  of  the  family  and  to  individualize  its 
members  in  their  economic  activities.  The  individual,  in 
other  words,  has  become  the  unit  in  production  as  well  as 
the  political  unit.  This  has  tended  to  destroy  the  social 
cohesion  between  the  members  of  the  family  group  and  has 
even  to  some  extent  placed  the  sexes  in  competition  with 
each  other. 

A  third  influence  greatly  affecting  modern  civilization  has 
been  the  enormous  growth  of  wealth  which  has  resulted 
from  the  introduction  of  machine  industry.  While  this 
wealth  has  not  extended  to  all  classes  of  society,  it  has 
emancipated  certain  classes  from  the  fear  of  want,  a  factor 
which  in  the  past  put  an  effective  restraint  upon  conduct. 
The  growth  of  wealth,  in  other  words,  has  favored,  in  cer- 
tain classes  at  least,  lower  moral  standards,  and  increasing 
laxity  in  family  relations. 

Owing  to  these  and  many  minor  causes  the  nineteenth 
century  was  a  period  of  great  social  change  and  unrest.  It 
was  a  period  of  social  disintegration  and  of  social  recon- 
struction, as  yet  far  from  complete.  Now,  in  such  periods 
jof  social  disintegration,  confusion  and  instability  in  insti- 
tutions are  apt  to  manifest  themselves,  until  some  new  basis 
for  a  stable  social  order  can  be  found.  While  the  forces 
making  for  social  dissolution  manifested  themselves  com- 
paratively late  in  the  family,  the  modern  family  has  sud- 
denly found  itself  confronted  with  the  need  of  social  read- 
justment and  in  the  midst  of  change  and  confusion. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  147 

The  Problem  of  the  Family.  —  Thus  it  happens  that  we 
find  the  family  life  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth  cen- 
tury in  a  more  unstable  condition  than  it  has  been  at  any 
time  since  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  Era.  Now,  any 
great  instability  of  the  family  is  manifestly  inconsistent 
with  the  idea  of  permanent  monogamy.  Hence  the  problem 
of  the  modem  family  is  whether  permanent  monogamy 
shall  continue  to  exist  or  to  be  the  standard  in  Western 
civilization.  There  are  many  who  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  the  family,  in  its  present  form  of  permanent  monog- 
amy, will  soon  pass  away.  While  such  a  statement  is  wholly 
unwarranted  from  a  scientific  standpoint,  the  student  of 
the  family  cannot  fail  to  see  that  the  crux  of  the  problem 
of  the  modem  family  lies  in  its  instability. 

The  legal  expression  of  the  instability  of  the  family  is  to 
be  seen  in  divorce.  If  the  whole  problem  of  the  modern 
family  centers  in  the  matter  of  its  instability,  then  the  study 
of  the  divorce  movement  should  throw  more  light  upon  the 
condition  of  the  modern  family  than  the  study  of  anything 
else.  Just  how  far  we  have  gone  already  toward  getting 
rid  of  permanent  monogamy  as  the  standard  in  modern 
society  will  be  more  or  less  evident  from  the  divorce 
statistics.  However,  the  student  must  bear  in  mind  that l 
divorce  statistics  never  adequately  measure  the  instability 
of  the  family  life,  for  divorce  is  only  the  legal  expression  of 
such  instability.  In  every  community  a  certain  number 
of  marriages  are  dissolved  without  the  formality  of  legal 
divorce.  Among  the  very  poorest  class  in  American  cities, 
it  is  found  that  illegal  desertion  is  about  four  times  as 
common  as  legal  divorce.  Hence  it  would  probably  be 
not  far  from  the  facts  if  we  should  add  20  per  cent  to 


148  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

the  number  of  divorces  granted  to  get  an  approximate 
measure  of  the  real  instability  of  the  family  in  American 
society. 

As  we  have  just  implied,  the  instability  of  the  modern 
family  is  most  evident  in  the  United  States.  This  is  due  in 
part  to  the  freedom  with  which  legal  divorce  has  been 
granted  in  the  United  States ;  but  it  is  also  due  in  part  to 
the  fact  that  American  society  has  exaggerated  the  in- 
dividualism and  industrialism  which  are  characteristic  of 
Western  civilization  in  general.  Hence,  although  the  dis- 
integration of  the  family  characterizes  more  or  less  all  modern 
civilization,  it  is  particularly  American  conditions  that  will 
concern  us,  because  they  illustrate  best  the  tendencies  of 
modern  society  in  respect  to  the  family. 

Without  devoting  too  much  time  to  the  consideration 
of  divorce  statistics  in  their  technical  aspects,  let  us  note, 
then,  some  of  the  main  outlines  of  the  modern  divorce 
movement  in  this  and  other  civilized  countries. 

Statistics  of  Divorce  in  the  United  States  and  Other 
Civilized  Countries.  —  For  a  long  time  the  United  States 
has  led  the  world  in  the  number  of  its  divorces.  Already 
in  1885  this  country  had  more  divorces  than  all  the  rest 
of  the  Christian  civilized  world  put  together.  These 
statistics  of  the  number  of  divorces  granted  in  different 
civilized  countries  in  1885  (taken  from  Professor  W.  F. 
Willcox's  monograph  on  The  Divorce  Problem)  are  of 
sufficient  interest  to  cite  at  length : 


United  States 23,472 

France 6,245 

Germany 6,161 

Russia 1,789 

P 


Austria 1,718 

Switzerland 920 

Denmark 635 

Italy 556 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 


149 


Great  Britain  and  Ireland 508 

Roumania 541 

Holland 339 

Belgium 290 


Sweden 229 

Australia 100 

Norway 68 

Canada. .  12 


It  will  be  noted  that  in  this  particular  year  (1885),  when 
the  United  States  had  23,472  divorces,  all  the  other  coun- 
tries   mentioned    together   had    only    20,131.     For    1905,    / 
twenty  years  later,  the  following  statistics  are  available: 


United  States 67,976 

Germany n,i47 

France 10,860 

Austria-Hungary 5,785 

Roumania 1,7*8 

Switzerland 1,206 

Belgium 901 

Holland 900 


Italy  (1904) 859 

Great  Britain  and  Ireland ....  821 

Denmark 549 

Sweden 448 

Norway 408 

Australia 339 

New  Zealand 1 26 

Canada 33, 


It  is  evident  from  the  above  figures  that  the  United  States 
has  more  than  kept  its  lead  over  the  rest  of  the  world  in 
this  matter  of  dissolving  family  ties,  for  it  would  seem 
probable  from  these  figures  that  in  1905,  when  the  United 
States  had  nearly  68,000  divorces,  all  the  rest  of  the 
Christian  civilized  world  put  together  had  less  than 
40,000.  Moreover,  the  divorce  rates  of  the  different 
countries  tell  the  same  story.  In  1905  in  France,  there 
was  only  one  divorce  to  every  thirty  marriages;  in  Germany, 
but  one  to  every  forty-four  marriages;  in  England,  but  one 
to  every  four  hundred  marriages.  Even  in  Switzerland, 
which  has  the  highest  divorce  rate  of  any  country  of 
Europe,  there  was  only  one  divorce  in  1905  to  every 
twenty-two  marriages.  Let  us  compare  these  rates  with 
that  of  the  United  States,  and  particularly  with  the  rates 
of  several  of  the  states  that  lead  in  the  matter  of  divorces. 
In  iQQ£_tbere  was  in  the  United  States  about  one  divorce 


4 


150  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

to  every  twelve  marriages,  but  the  states  of  Washington, 
Oregon,  and  Montana  had  one  divorce  to  every  five  mar- 
riages; Colorado  and  Indiana  had  one  divorce  to  every 
six  marriages ;  Oklahoma,  California,  and  Maine  had  one 
divorce  to  every  seven  marriages ;  New  Hampshire,  Arkan- 
sas, Texas,  Missouri,  and  Kansas,  one  divorce  to  every 
eight  marriages.  While  these  rates  are  those  of  the  states 
in  which  divorces  are  most  numerous,  yet,  nevertheless, 
the  number  of  states  in  which  the  divorce  rates  range  from 
one  to  every  six  marriages  to  one  to  nine  marriages  are  so 
numerous  that  they  may  be  said  to  be  fairly  representative 
of  conditions  generally  in  a  large  proportion  of  the  whole 
country.  The  divorce  census  for  1916,  moreover,  the  re- 
turns of  which  are  only  for  that  one  year,  showed  a  divorce 
rate  in  that  year  for  the  United  States  as  a  whole  of  one 
divorce  to  every  nine  marriages,  while  in  two  far  Western 
states  the  rate  exceeded  one  divorce  to  every  three  mar- 
riages. 

Increase  of  Divorces  in  the  United  States.  Not  only 
does  the  United  States  lead  the  world  in  the  number  of 
/  its  divorces,  but  apparently  divorces  are  increasing  in  this 
country  much  more  rapidly  than  the  population.  In 
1867,  the  first  year  for  which  statistics  for  the  country  as 
a  whole  were  gathered,  there  were  9937  divorces  in  the 
•  United  States,  but  by  1916,  the  last  year  for  which  we  have 
statistics,  the  total  number  of  divorces  granted  in  this 
country,  yearly,  had  reached  112,036.  Again,  from  1867 
to  1886  there  were  328,716  divorces  granted  in  the  United 
States,  but  during  the  next  twenty  years,  from  1887  to 
1906,  the  number  reached  945,625,  or  almost  a  total  of 
1,000,000  divorces  granted  in  twenty  years.  Again,  from 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  151 

1867  to  1886  the  number  of  divorces  increased  157  per 
cent,  while  the  population  increased  only  about  60  per 
cent;  from  1887  to  1906  the  number  of  divorces  in- 
creased over  1 60  per  cent,  while  the  population  increased 
only  slightly  over  50  per  cent.  Thus  it  is  evident  that 
divorces  are  increasing  in  the  United  States  three  times 
as  fast  as  the  increase  of  population.  It  becomes,  there- 
fore, a  matter  of  some  curious  interest  to  speculate  upon 
what  will  be  the  end  of  this  movement.  If  divorces 
should  continue  to  increase  as  they  have  during  the  past 
forty  years,  it  is  evident  that  it  would  not  be  long  before 
all  marriages  would  be  terminated  by  divorce  instead  of 
by  death.  In  1870,  3.5  per  cent  of  all  marriages  were  ter- 
minated by  divorce;  in  1900,  8.1  per  cent  were  terminated 
by  divorce,  and  in  1916,  about  n  per  cent.  Professor 
Willcox  has  estimated  that  if  this  increasing  divorce  rate 
continues,  by  1950  one  fourth  of  all  marriages  in  the 
United  States  will  be  terminated  by  divorce,  and  in  1990 
one  half  of  all  marriages.  Thus  we  are  apparently  within 
measurable  distance  of  a  time  when,  if  present  tendencies 
continue,  the  family,  as  a  permanent  union  between 
husband  and  wife,  lasting  until  death,  shall  cease  to  be. 
At  least,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  in  a  population  where  one  j 
half  of  all  marriages  will  be  terminated  by  divorce  the 
social  conditions  would  be  no  better  than  those  in  the 
Rome  of  the  decadence.  We  cannot  imagine  such  a 
state  of  affairs  without  the  existence  alongside  of  it  of 
widespread  promiscuity,  neglect  of  childhood,  and  general 
social  demoralization.  Without,  however,  stopping  at  this 
point  to  discuss  the  results  or  the  effects  of  the  divorce 
movement  upon  society,  let  us  now  consider  for  a  moment 


152  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

how  these  divorces   are   distributed   among   the   various 
elements  and  classes  of  our  population. 

Distribution  of  Divorces.  It  is  usually  thought  by  those 
who  have  observed  the  matter  most  carefully  that  divorce 
especially  characterizes  the  wealthy  classes  and  the  laboring 
classes,  but  is  least  common  among  the  middle  classes.  We 
have  no  statistics  to  bear  out  this  belief,  but  it  seems  prob- 
able that  it  is  substantially  correct.  The  divorce  statistics 
which  we  have,  however,  indicate  certain  striking  differences 
in  the  distribution  of  divorces  by  classes  and  communities. 

(1)  The  divorce  rate  is  higher  in  the  cities  than  in  their 
surrounding  country  districts.     The   statistics   show,   for 
example,  that  in  many  cities  in  the  Central  West  the  divorce 
rates  are  much  higher  than  in  the  states  in  which  they  are 
situated.     Exceptions  to  this  generalization  are  cities  in 
which  a  large  proportion  of  the  population  are  Roman 
Catholic  or  of  foreign  birth. 

(2)  The  census  statistics  show  that  apparently  the  divorce 
rate  is  about  four  times  as  high  among  childless  couples  as 
among  couples  that  have  children.     This  doubtless  does  not 
mean  that  domestic  unhappiness  is  four  times  more  common 
in  families  where  there  are  no  children  than  in  families  that 
have  children,  but  it  does  show,  nevertheless,   that  the 
parental  instinct  is  now,  as  in  primitive  times,  a  powerful 
force  to  bind  husband  and  wife  together. 

(3)  While  we  have  no  statistics  from  this  country  telling 
us  exactly  what  the  distribution  of  divorces  is  among  the 
various^religious  denominations,  still  we  know  that  because 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is  strongly  against  divorce, 
divorces  are- very  rare  in  thatjlejiomination.     In  Switzer- 
land, where  the  number  of  divorces  among  Protestants  and 


THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  153 

Catholics  has  been  noted,  it  is  found  that  divorces  are  four 
times  as  common  among  Protestants  as  among  Catholics. 
Some  observers  in  this  country  have  claimed  that  divorces 
are  most  common  among  those  of  no  religious  profession, 
next  most  common  among  Protestants,  next  among  Jews, 
and  least  common  among  Roman  Catholics. 

(4)  From  this  we  might  expect,  as  our  statistics  indicate, 
that  the  divorce  rate  is  much  higher  among  the  native 
whites  in  this  country  than  it  is  among  the  foreign  born, 
for  many  of  the  foreign  born  are  Roman  Catholics,  and, 
in  any  case,  they  come  from  countries  where  divorce  is  less 
common  than  in  the  United  States. 

(5)  For  the  last  forty  years  two  thirds  of  all  divorces 
have  been  granted  on  demand  of  the  wife.     This  may 
indicate,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  increase  of  divorces  is  a 
movement  connected  with  the  emancipation  of  woman, 
and  on  the  other  hand  it  may  indicate  that  it  is  the  husband 
who  usually  gives  the  ground  for  divorce. 

(6)  The  census  statistics  show  three  great  centers    of 
divorce  in  the  United  States.     One  is  the  New  England 
States,  one  the  states  of  the  Central  West,  and  one  the 
Rocky  Mountain  and  Pacific  Coast  states.     These  three 
centers  are  also  typical  centers  of  American  institutions 
and  ideas.     The  individualism  of  the  New  England,  the 
Central  West,  and  the  Rocky  Mountain  and  Pacific  Coast 
regions  has  always  been  marked  in  comparison  with  some 
other  sections  of  the  country.     But  during  the  last  twenty 
years  divorce  has  also  been  increasing  rapidly  in  the  Southern 
states,  and  we  now  find  such  states  as  Texas,  Arkansas, 
and  Oklahoma  well  up  toward  the  front  among  the  states 
with  a  high  divorce  rate. 


154  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

This  distribution  of  divorces  among  the  various  elements 
and  classes  of  the  country  suggests  something  as  to  the 
causes  of  divorce,  and  this  will  come  out  fully  later  in  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  causes  of  the  increase  of  divorce. 

The  Grounds  for  Granting  Divorce.  —  There  are  no  less 
than  thirty-six  distinct  grounds  for  absolute  divorce  recog- 
nized by  the  laws  of  the  several  states,  ranging  from  only  one 
ground*  recognized  in  New  York  to  fourteen  grounds  recog- 
nized in  New  Hampshire.  For  this  reason  some  have  sup- . 
posed  that  many  of  the  divorces  in  this  country  are  granted 
on  comparatively  trivial  grounds.  Several  states  have, 
for  example,  what  is  known  as  an  "  Omnibus  Clause," 
granting  divorce  for  mere  incompatibility  and  the  like. 
But  the  examination  of  divorce  statistics  shows  that  very 
few  divorces  are  granted  on  trivial  grounds.  On  the  con- 
trary, most  divorces  seem  to  be  granted  for  grave  rea- 
sons, such  as  adultery,  desertion,  cruelty,  imprisonment  for 
crime,  habitual  drunkenness,  and  neglect  on  the  part  of 
the  husband  to  provide  for  his  family.  These  are  usually 
recognized  as  grave  reasons  for  the  dissolution  of  the  mar- 
riage tie.  None  of  them  at  least  could  be  said  to  be  trivial. 
Professor  Willcox  showed  that  for  the  twenty  year  period, 
1867  to  1886,  over  ninety-seven  per  cent  of  all  divorces 
were  granted  for  these  six  principal  causes.  Moreover,  he 
also  showed  that  over  sixty  per  cent  were  granted  for  the 
two  most  serious  causes  of  all,  —  adultery  and  desertion. 
Again,  of  the  one  million  divorces  granted  from  1887  to 
1906  over  ninety-four  per  cent  were  granted  for  the  six 
principal  causes  and  over  fifty-five  per  cent  for  adultery  and 
desertion,  while  in  still  other  cases  adultery  and  desertion 
figured  in  combination  with  other  causes  (a  total  of  over 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  155 

sixty- two  per  cent  in  all).  Therefore,  it  seems  probable 
that  in  nearly  two  thirds  of  the  cases  the  marriage  bond  had 
already  practically  been  dissolved  before  the  courts  stepped 
in  to  make  the  dissolution  formal.  We  must  conclude, 
therefore,  that  divorce  is  prevalent  not  because  of  the 
laxity  of  our  laws,  but  rather  because  of  the  decay  of  our 
family  life  ;  that  divorce  is  but  a  symptom  of  the  disin- 
tegration of  the  modern  family,  particularly  the  American 
family. 

In  other  words,  divorce  is  but  a  symptom  of  more  serious 
evils,  and  these  evils  have  in  certain  classes  of  American 
society  apparently  undermined  the  very  virtues  upon  which 
the  family  life  subsists.  This  is  not  saying  that  vice  is  more 
prevalent  to-day  than  it  was  fifty  years  ago.  We  have  no 
means  of  knowing  whether  it  is  or  not,  and  there  may  well 
be  a  difference  of  opinion  upon  such  a  subject.  It  is  the 
opinion  of  some  eminent  authorities  that  there  has  been  no 
growth  of  vice  in  the  United  States  along  with  the  growth 
of  divorce,  but  this  would  seem  to  be  doubtful.  The  very 
causes  for  which  divorce  is  granted  suggest  a  demoraliza- 
tion of  certain  classes.  While  there  may  not  have  been, 
therefore,  any  general  growth  of  vice  in  the  United  States 
along  with  the  growth  of  divorce,  it  is  conceivable  that  it 
may  have  increased  greatly  in  certain  classes  of  American 
society.  Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  not  necessary  to  assume 
that  there  has  been  any  growth  of  vice  in  the  American 
population,  for  if  actual  moral  practices  are  no  higher  than 
they  were  fifty  years  ago  that  alone  would  be  a  sufficient 
reason  to  explain  considerable  disintegration  of  our  family 
life.  It  is  an  important  truth  in  sociology  that  the  moral- 
ity which  suffices  for  a  relatively  simple  social  life,  largely 


I 


1 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 


ral,  such  as  existed  in  this  country  fifty  years  ago,  is  not 
lUfficient  for  a  more  complex  society  which  is  largely  urban, 
such  as  exists  at  the  present  time.  Moreover,  recognized 
moral  standards  within  the  past  fifty  years  have  largely 
been  raised  through  the  growth  of  general  intelligence.  It 
follows  that  immoral  acts,  which  were  condoned  fifty  years 
ago  and  which  produced  but  slight  social  effect,  to-day 
meet  with  great  reprobation  and  have  far  greater  social 
consequences  than  a  generation  ago.  This  is  particularly 
true  of  the  standards  which  the  wife  imposes  upon  the  hus- 
band. For  centuries,  as  we  have  already  seen,  the  husband 
has  secured  divorce  for  adultery  of  the  wife,  but  for  centu- 
ries no  divorce  was  given  to  the  wife  for  the  adultery  of  the 
husband;  and  this  is  even  true  to-day  in  modern  England, 
unless  the  adultery  of  the  husband  be  accompanied  by  other 
flagrant  violations  of  morality.  Conduct  on  the  part  of 
the  husband,  which  the  wife  overlooked,  therefore,  a  gene- 
ration ago,  is  to-day  sufficient  to  disrupt  the  family  bonds 
and  become  a  ground  for  the  granting  of  a  divorce.  Even 
if  vice,  then,  has  not  increased  in  our  population,  if  moral 
practices  are  no  higher  to-day  than  fifty  years  ago,  we 
should  expect  that  this  alone  would  have  far  different  con- 
sequences now  than  then.  The  growth  of  intelligence  and 
of  higher  and  more  complex  forms  of  social  organization 
necessitates  realization  of  higher  standards  of  conduct  if 
the  institutions  of  society  are  to  retain  their  stability. 

But  there  are  grave  reasons  for  believing  that  there  has 
ieen  in  certain  classes  of  society  a  decay  of  the  very  virtues 
upon  which  the  family  rests,  for  the  family  life  requires  not 
only  chastity,  but  even  more  the  virtues  of  self-sacrifice, 
loyalty,  obedience,  and  self -subordination.  Now  there  is 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  157 

abundant  evidence  to  show  that  these  particular  virtues 
which  belong  to  a  self-subordinating  life  are  those  which 
have  suffered  most  in  the  changes  and  new  adjustments 
of  modern  society.  We  have  replaced  these  virtues 
largely  by  those  of  self-interest,  self-direction,  and  self- 
assertiveness. 

Causes  of  the  Increase  of  Divorce  in  the  United  States. 
i  —  Let  us  note  somewhat  more  in  detail  the  causes  of  the 
increased  instability  of  the  American  family  during  the 
past  four  or  five  decades.  We  have  already  in  a  rough 
way  indicated  some  of  these  causes  in  studying  the  dis- 
tribution of  divorce  and  the  grounds  upon  which  it  is 
granted.  But  the  causes  of  the  instability  of  the  family 
so  affect  our  whole  social  life  and  all  of  our  institutions 
that  they  are  well  worth  somewhat  more  detailed  study. 

(1)  As  the  first  of  these  causes  of  the  increase  of  divorce 
in   the  United   States  we  should   put  the  decay  of   re- 
ligion,  particularly   of   the   religious   theory  of  marriage 
and  the  family.    As  we  have  already  seen,  no  stable  family 
life  has  existed  anywhere  in  history  without  a  religious 
basis,  but  within  the  last  few  decades  religious  sentiments, 
beliefs,  and  ideals  have  become  largely  dissociated  from 
marriage  and  the  family,  and  the  result  is  that  many 
people  regard  the  institutions  of  marriage  and  the  family 
as  a  matter  of  personal  convenience.     This  decay  of  the 
religious  view  of  the  marriage  bond  has,  however,  had 
other  antecedent  causes,  partly  in  the  moral  and  intellec- 
tual spirit  of  our  civilization,  partly  in  our  industrial  con- 
ditions. 

(2)  We  should  put,  therefore,  as  a  second  cause  of  the 
increase  of  divorces  in  this  country  the  growing  spirit 


158  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

of  individualism.  By  individualism  we  mean  here  the 
spirit  of  self-assertion  and  self-interest,  the  spirit  which 
leads  a  man  to  find  his  law  in  his  own  wishes,  or  even  in  his 
whims  and  caprices.  Now,  this  growing  spirit  of  individual- 
ism is  undoubtedly  more  destructive  of  the  social  life  than 
anything  else.  It  makes  unstable  all  institutions,  and  espe- 
cially the  family,  because  the  family  must  rest  upon  very 
opposite  characteristics.  Our  laissez-faire  democracy,  our 
industrial  organization,  and  our  unsocialized  education  have 
all  been  responsible  to  some  extent  for  making  the  in- 
dividual take  his  own  interests  and  wishes  as  his  law. 

(3)  Moreover,  this  individualism  has  spread  within  the 
last  fifty  years  especially  among  the  women  of  the  popu- 
lation, and  has  produced  a  great  movement,  known  in  its 
moderate  phases  as  the  "Woman's  Movement"  and  in  its 
more  radical  phases  as  "Feminism."  The  woman's  move- 
ment has  accompanied  and  in  part  effected  the  eman- 
cipation of  women  legally,  mentally,  and  economically. 
The  result  is  that  women,  as  a  class,  have  become  as  much 
individualized  as  the  men,  and  oftentimes  are  as  great 
practical  individualists. 

No  one  would  claim  that  the  emancipation  of  woman, 
in  the  sense  of  freeing  her  from  those  things  which  have1 
prevented  the  highest  and  best  development  of  her  per- 
sonality, is  not  desirable.  But  this  emancipation  of  woman 
has  brought  with  it  certain  opportunities  for  going  down 
as  well  as  for  going  up.  Woman's  emancipation  has  not, 
in  other  words,  meant  to  all  classes  of  women,  woman's 
elevation.  On  the  contrary,  it  has  been  to  some,  if  not  an 
opportunity  for  license,  at  least  an  opportunity  for  self- 
assertion  and  selfishness  not  consistent  with  the  welfare 


THE   PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  159 

of  society  and  particularly  with  the  stability  of  the  family. 
We  may  remind  ourselves  once  more  that  the  Roman 
women  achieved  complete  emancipation,  but  they  did  not 
thereby  better  their  social  position.  On  the  contrary, 
the  emancipation  of  woman  in  Rome  meant  woman's 
degradation,  and  ultimately  the  demoralization  of  Roman 
family  life.  While  this  is  not  necessarily  an  accompani- 
ment of  woman's  emancipation,  still  it  is  a  real  danger 
which  threatens,  and  of  which  we  can  already  see  many 
evidences  in  modern  society.  As  in  all  other  emanci- 
patory movements,  the  dangers  of  freedom  are  found  for 
some  individuals  at  least  to  be  quite  as  great  as  the  dangers 
of  subjection. 

That  the  woman's  movement  has  had  much  to  do  with 
the  growth  of  divorce  in  this  country  gains  substantiation 
from  the  fact  that  many  of  the  leaders  of  that  movement, 
especially  the  more  radical  like  Mrs.  Oilman  and  Miss 
Ellen  Key,  have  advocated  free  divorce,  and  their  inculca- 
tion of  this  doctrine  certainly  could  not  have  been  without 
some  effect. 

But  the  woman's  movement  would  have  perhaps  failed 
to  develop,  or  at  least  failed  of  widespread  support,  if  it 
had  not  been  for  the  economic  emancipation  of  woman 
through  the  opening  to  her  of  many  new  industrial  callings 
and  the  securing  for  her  a  certain  measure  of  economic  inde- 
pendence. This,  again,  while  perhaps  a  good  thing  in 
itself,  has,  nevertheless,  facilitated  the  growing  tendency 
to  form  unstable  family  relations.  But  this  economic 
independence  of  woman,  we  need  hardly  remark,  is  the 
necessary  and,  indeed,  inevitable  outcome  of  modern  in- 
dustrial development. 


160          THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE   MODERN  FAMILY 

//  (4)  The  growth  of  modern  industrialism  must,  then,  be 
regarded  as  one  of  the  fundamental  factors  which  has 
brought  about  the  increase  of  divorce  in  the  United  States. 
By  industrialism  we  mean  manufacturing  industry.  As 
we  have  already  noticed,  the  growth  of  manufacturing 
industry  has  opened  a  large  number  of  new  economic 
callings  to  woman  and  has  rendered  her  largely  economically 
independent  of  family  relations.  Moreover,  the  labor  of 
women  in  factories  has  tended  to  disrupt  the  home,  partic- 
ularly in  the  case  of  married  women,  as  we  have  already 
seen.  For  the  laboring  classes  it  has  tended  to  make  the 
home  only  a  lodging  place,  with  little  or  no  development 
of  a  true  family  life.  Again,  such  labor  has  set  the  sexes 
in  competition  with  each  other,  has  tended  to  reduce  their 
sexual  differences  and  to  stimulate  immensely  their  individ- 
ualism. Finally,  inasmuch  as  modern  industrialism  has 
tended  to  destroy  the  home,  the  result  has  been  the  pro- 
duction of  unsocialized  children,  and  especially  of  those 
that  had  no  tradition  of  a  family  life.  Girls,  for  example, 
through  industrialism,  have  failed  to  learn  the  domestic 
arts,  failed  to  have  any  training  in  homemaking,  and  there- 
fore when  they  came  to  the  position  of  wife  and  mother, 
they  were  frequently  not  fitted  for  such  a  life,  and 
through  their  lack  of  adjustment  rendered  the  homes  which 
they  formed  unstable. 

(5)  Closely  connected  with  the  growth  of  modern  indus- 
trialism is  the  growth  of  modern  cities,  and,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  divorce  is  usually  much  more  common  in 
the  cities  than  in  the  rural  districts.  The  growth  of  the 
cities,  in  other  words,  has  been  a  cause  of  the  increase 
of  divorce.  City  populations,  on  account  of  the  economic 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  161 

conditions  under  which  they  live,  are  peculiarly  homeless. 
A  normal  home  can  scarcely  exist  in  the  slums  and  in  some 
of  the  tenement  districts  of  our  cities.  Again,  in  the  city 
there  is  perhaps  more  vice  and  other  immorality,  less 
control  of  the  individual  by  public  opinion,  and  more 
opportunity,  on  account  of  close  living  together  and  high 
standards  of  living,  for  friction,  both  within  and  without 
the  domestic  circle. 

(6)  The  higher  standards  of  living  and  comfort  which 
have  come  with  the  growth  of  our  industrial  civilization, 
especially  of  our  cities,  must  also  be  set  down  as  a  cause 
of  increasing  instability  of  the  family.  High  standards 
of  living  are,  of  course,  desirable  if  they  can  be  realized, 
that  is,  if  they  are  reasonable.  But  many  elements  of 
our  population  have  standards  of  living  and  comfort  which 
they  find  are  practically  impossible  to  realize  with  the  income 
which  they  have.  Many  classes,  in  other  words,  are  unable 
to  meet  the  social  demands  which  they  suppose  they  must 
meet  in  order  to  maintain  a  home.  To  found  and  main- 
tain a  home,  therefore,  with  these  rising  standards  of  liv- 
ing, and  also  within  the  last  decade  or  two  with  the  rising 
cost  of  living,  requires  such  a  large  income  that  an  in- 
creasingly smaller  proportion  of  the  population  are  able 
to  do  this  satisfactorily.  From  this  cause,  undoubtedly, 
a  great  deal  of  domestic  misery  and  unhappiness  results, 
which  finally  shows  itself  in  desertion  or  in  the  divorce 
court. 

It  is  evident  that  higher  standards  of  taste  and  higher 
standards  of  morality  may  also  operate  under  certain 
circumstances  to  render  the  family  life  unstable  in  a 
similar  way. 


162          THE   PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

,/  (7)  Directly  connected  with  these  last  mentioned  causes 
is  another  cause,  —  the  higher  age  of  marriage.  Some 
have  thought  that  a  low  age  of  marriage  was  more  prolific 
in  divorces  than  a  relatively  high  age  of  marriage.  But 
a  low  age  of  marriage  cannot  be  a  cause  of  the  increase 
of  divorce  in  the  United  States,  because  the  proportion  of 
immature  marriages  hi  most  classes  is  steadily  lessening, 
that  is,  the  age  of  marriage  has  been  increasing,  and  all 
must  admit  that  along  with  the  higher  age  of  marriage  has 
gone  increasing  divorce;  and  there  may  possibly  be  some 
connection  between  the  two  facts.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  the  higher  standards  of  living  make  later  marriage 
necessary.  Men  in  the  professions  do  not  think  of  marriage 
nowadays  until  thirty,  or  until  they  have  an  independ- 
ent income.  Now,  how  may  the  higher  age  of  marriage 
possibly  increase  the  instability  of  the  family?  It  may  do 
so  in  this  way.  After  thirty,  psychologists  tell  us,  one's 
habits  are  relatively  fixed  and  hard  to  change.  People 
who  marry  after  thirty,  therefore,  usually  find  greater 
difficulty  in  adjusting  themselves  to  each  other  than 
people  who  marry  somewhat  younger;  and  every  marriage 
necessarily  involves  an  adjustment  of  individuals  to  each 
other.  This  being  so,  we  can  readily  understand  that  late 
marriages  are  more  apt  to  result  in  faulty  adjustments 
in  the  family  relation  than  marriages  that  take  place  in 
early  maturity. 

(8)  Another  cause  of  the  increase  of  divorce  in  the 
United  States  that  has  been  given  is  the  popularization 
of  law  which  has  accompanied  the  growth  of  democratic 
institutions.  Law  was  once  the  prerogative  of  special 
classes,  and  courts  were  rarely  appealed  to  except  by  the 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  163 

noble  or  wealthy  classes;  but  with  the  growth  of  demo- 
cratic institutions  there  has  been  a  great  spread  of  legal 
education,  especially  through  the  modern  newspaper, 
and  consequently  a  greater  participation  in  the  remedies 
offered  by  the  courts  for  all  sorts  of  wrongs,  real  or  im- 
agined. Many  people,  for  example,  who  would  not  have 
thought  of  divorce  a  generation  ago,  now  know  how 
divorce  may  be  secured  and  are  ready  to  secure  it.  How- 
ever, it  would  seem  as  though  this  cause  of  the  increase  of 
divorce  might  have  operated  to  a  greater  extent  twenty- 
five  or  thirty  years  ago  than  it  has  during  the  last  two 
decades,  for  it  cannot  be  said  that  since  the  nineties  there 
has  been  much  increase  of  legal  education  among  the 
masses,  or  much  greater  popularization  of  the  law. 

(9)  Increasing  laxity  of  the  laws  regarding  divorce  and 
increasing  laxity  in  the  administration  of  the  laws  has 
certainly  been  a  cause  of  increasing  divorce  in  the  United 
States,  though  back  of  these  causes  doubtless  lie  all  the 
other  causes  just  mentioned,  and  also  increasing  laxity 
in  public  opinion  regarding  marriage  and  divorce.  To 
assume  that  laxity  of  the  laws  and  of  legal  administration 
has  no  influence  upon  the  increase  of  divorce  in  a  pop- 
lation  is  to  go  contrary  to  all  human  experience.  The 
people  of  Canada  and  of  England,  for  example,  are  not 
very  different  from  ourselves  in  culture  and  in  institutions, 
yet  there  is  almost  no  divorce  in  England  and  in  Canada 
as  compared  with  the  United  States.  Canada  has  a  v 
few  dozen  divorces  annually,  while  we  have  over  seventy 
thousand.  Unquestionably  the  main  cause  of  this  great 
difference  between  Canada  and  the  United  States  is  to  be 
found  in  the  difference  of  their  laws.  This  is  not  saying, 


164      THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

however,  that  instability  of  the  family  does  not  charac- 
terize Canada  and  England  as  well  as  the  United  States, 
even  though  such  instability  does  not  express  itself  in  the 
divorce  courts. 

Interesting  statistics  have  been  collected  in  numerous 
places  in  the  country  to  show  the  laxity  of  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  divorce  laws.  In  many  of  the  divorce 
courts  of  our  large  cities,  for  example,  it  has  repeatedly 
been  shown  that  the  average  time  occupied  by  the  court 
in  granting  a  divorce  is  not  more  than  fifteen  minutes. 
In  other  words,  divorce  cases  are  frequently  rushed  through 
our  divorce  courts  without  solemnity,  without  adequate 
investigation,  with  every  opportunity  for  collusion  between 
the  parties,  so  as  to  favor  a  very  free  granting  of  divorces. 
On  the  other  hand,  about  one  fourth  of  all  the  applications 
for  divorce  which  come  to  trial  are  refused  by  the  courts, 
showing  that  the  courts  are  not  so  lax  in  all  cases  as  they 
are  sometimes  pictured  to  be. 

Moreover,  the  divorce  courts  have  two  excuses  for  their 
laxity.  First,  the  divorce  courts  are  always  greatly  over- 
burdened with  the  number  of  cases  before  them;  and, 
secondly,  public  opinion,  which  the  courts  as  well  as  other 
phases  of  our  government  largely  reflect,  favors  this  laxity. 
This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  public  opinion  stands  back 
of  the  lax  divorce  statutes  of  many  states,  all  efforts  to 
radically  change  these  statutes  having  failed  of  recent 
years. 

(10)  Our  study  of  the  family  has  accustomed  us  to  the 
thought  that  the  family  is  an  institution  which,  like  all 
other  human  institutions,  undergoes  constant  changes. 
Now  at  periods  of  change  in  any  institution,  periods  of 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  165 

transition  from  one  type  to  another,  there  is  apt  to  be  a 
period  of  confusion.  The  old  type  of  institution  is  never 
replaced  at  once  by  a  new  type  of  institution  ready-made 
and  adjusted  to  the  social  life,  but  only  gradually  does 
the  new  institution  emerge  from  the  elements  of  the  old. 
In  the  meantime,  however,  there  may  be  a  considerable 
period  of  confusion  and  anarchy.  This  social  principle, 
we  may  note,  rests  upon  the  deeper  psychological  principle, 
that  old  habits  are  usually  not  replaced  by  new  habits 
without  an  intervening  period  of  confusion  and  uncertainty. 
In  other  words,  in  the  transition  from  the  old  habit  to  the 
new  habit  there  is  much  opportunity  for  disorganization 
and  disintegration.  It  is  exactly  so  in  human  society, 
because  social  institutions  are  but  expressions  of  habit. 

Now,  the  old  semipatriarchal  type  of  the  family,  which 
prevailed  down  to  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, the  type  of  the  family  which  we  might  perhaps 
properly  call  the  monarchical  type,  has  been  disappearing 
for  the  past  one  hundred  years,  —  is  in  fact  already  practi- 
cally extinct,  at  least  in  America,  but  we  have  not  yet 
built  up  a  new  type  of  the  family  to  take  its  place.  The 
old  semipatriarchal  family  of  our  forefathers  has  gone, 
but  no  new  type  of  the  family  has  yet  become  general. 
A  democratic  type  of  the  family  in  harmony  with  our 
democratic  civilization  must  be  evolved.  But  such  a 
democratic  type  of  the  family  can  be  stable  only  upon  the 
condition  that  its  stability  is  within  itself  and  not  with- 
out. Authority  in  various  coercive  forms  made  the  old 
type  of  the  family  stable,  but  a  stable  basis  for  a  new  type 
of  the  family  has  not  yet  been  found,  or  rather  it  has  not 
been  found  by  large  elements  of  our  population.  Un- 


1 66  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE   MODERN  FAMILY 

questionably  a  democratic  ethical  type  of  the  family  in 
which  the  rights  of  every  one  are  respected  and  all  members 
are  bound  together,  not  through  fear  or  through  force  of 
authority,  but  through  love  and  affection,  is  being  evolved 
in  certain  classes  of  our  society.  The  problem  before 
our  civilization  is  whether  such  a  democratic  ethical 
type  of  the  family  can  become  generalized  a<nd  offer  a 
stable  family  life  to  our  whole  population.  HL  is  evident 
that  in  order  to  do  this  there  must  be  a  considerable 
development,  not  only  of  the  spirit  of  equality,  but  even 
more,  a  considerable  development  of  social  intelligence 
and  ethical  character  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  To 
construct  a  stable  family  life  of  this  character,  however, 
which  is  apparently  the  only  type  which  will  meet  the 
demands  of  modern  civilization,  —  is  not  an  impossibility, 
but  is  a  delicate  and  difficult  task  which  will  require  all 
the  resources  of  the  state,  the  school,  and  the  church. 
There  is,  however,  no  ground  as  yet  for  pessimism  regard- 
ing the  future  of  our  family  life;  rather  all  its  instability 
and  demoralization  of  the  present  are  simply  incident, 
we  must  believe,  to  the  achievement  of  a  higher  type  of 
the  family  than  the  world  has  yet  seen.  Such  a  higher 
type,  however,  will  not  come  about  without  thought  and 
effort  or  without  wise  social  leadership. 

The  Reconstruction  of  the  Family.  —  That  instability 
of  the  family  and  divorce,  so  far  as  it  is  an  expression 
of  that  instability,  is  an  evil  in  society  is  implied  in  all 
that  has  thus  far  been  said  concerning  the  origin,  develop- 
ment, and  functions  of  the  family  as  an  institution.  While 
all  the  preceding  chapters  amount  to  an  argument  on 
this  question,  a  word  further  may  not  be  out  of  place. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE   MODERN   FAMILY  167 

It  is  often  said  by  those  who  favor  free  divorce,  that  such 
divorce  will  prevent  immorality  in  society ;  but  it  must  be 
pointed  out  that  this  has  not  been  the  experience  in  other 
countries  and  ages  than  our  own.  As  we  have  already 
seen,  in  proportion  as  divorce  grew  in  Rome,  for  example, 
sexual  immorality  of  all  sorts  increased.  Weak  family 
ties  seem  to  encourage  lax  relations  between  the  sexes 
generally,  and  destroy  the  ideal  in  society  of  the  sanctity 
of  the  marriage  bond.  Again,  those  who  advocate  free 
divorce  claim  tha*,  such  free  divorce  is  for  the  benefit 
of  the  children  as  well  as  of  the  husband  and  wife.  While 
it  may  be  admitted  that  in  many  cases  it  is  desirable  to 
dissolve  the  family  bonds  for  the  sake  of  the  children, 
still  all  investigations  seem  to  show  that  the  instability  of 
the  family  is  itself  one  of  the  greatest  sources  of  child  de- 
linquency and  dependency  in  those  communities  where 
such  instability  is  pronounced.  In  an  investigation  made 
by  the  writer  in  the  year  1909,  it  was  found  that  out  of  7575 
children  in  thirty-four  State  Reform  Schools,  29.6  per  cent 
came  from  families  in  which  there  had  been  divorce  or 
desertion,  33  per  cent  in  which  either  father  or  mother  were 
dead,  while  38  per  cent  (including  a  few  cases  which  over- 
lapped the  first  two  classes)  came  from  homes  demoralized 
by  drink,  vice,  or  crime.  In  only  a  negligible  per  cent  of  the  \ 
cases  did  these  Reform  School  children  have  a  normal 
family  life.  Out  of  4278  children  investigated  in  four  ju- 
venile courts,  it  was  found  that  23.7  per  cent  of  this  num- 
ber came  from  families  in  which  father  and  mother  were 
separated  by  desertion  or  divorce,  while  27.8  per  cent  came 
from  families  in  which  one  or  both  parents  were  dead. 
Even  in  thirty-two  institutions  for  dependent  children  it 


168  THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN   FAMILY 

was  found  that  24.7  per  cent  of  the  inmates  were  from  homes 
in  which  there  had  been  desertion  or  divorce,  while  only 
47.5  per  cent  were  either  orphans  or  half  orphans.  Many 
other  statistics  have  been  collected  by  social  workers  show- 
ing that  apparently  the  children  of  separated  or  divorced 
parents  are  much  more  apt  to  drift  into  poverty,  vice,  or 
crime,  that  is,  into  the  unsocialized  classes,  than  children 
who  do  not  come  from  such  disrupted  homes.  The  general 
conclusion  of  social  workers  is  that  a  normal  family  life 
in  which  the  child  has  the  care  of  both  parents  is  the  best 
possible  guarantee  for  the  proper  adjustment  of  the  child 
to  society ;  for  hitherto  all  experiments  in  the  proper  care 
and  upbringing  of  children  in  institutions  have  been, 
comparatively  speaking,  failures.  We  are  not  warranted, 
therefore,  in  drawing  any  other  conclusion  than  that  the 
welfare  of  the  child  as  well  as  the  moral  character  of  adults 
is  bound  up  with  the  stability  of  the  family. 

If  the  real  evil  is  not  so  much  divorce  as  the  decay  of  the 
family  life,  however,  it  is  idle  to  suppose  that  superficial 
remedies  will  suffice.  Nothing  short  of  radical  social 
reconstruction,  such  as  will  put  an  end  to  all  of  the  disinte- 
grating influences  which  are  now  affecting  the  home, 
whether  industrial,  political,  or  moral,  will  solve  the  problem 
of  the  modern  family.  The  problem  of  the  family,  in  other 
words,  like  all  other  social  problems,  is  bound  up  with  the 
total  conditions  of  modern  social  life.  As  has  often  been 
emphasized,  present  social  problems  are  all  interdependent 
and  really  but  phases  of  one  larger  problem,  the  "  Social 
Problem,  "the  problem  of  the  relations  of  men  to  one  another. 

Legislation  can  do  little,  in  one  sense,  to  correct  the  real 
evil.  That  it  can  do  nothing,  and  that  an  attitude  of 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  169 

laissez-faire  is  justified  upon  this  question,  is,  of  course, 
not  true.  Legislation,  if  properly  applied,  can  assist  in 
accomplishing  much.  Even  direct  legislation  regarding 
marriage  and  divorce  can  accomplish  something.  As  we 
have  already  noted,  the  difference  between  the  few  divorces 
of  Canada  and  the  many  divorces  of  the  United  States  is 
largely  due  to  a  difference  of  laws.  But  of  course  we  must 
not  assume  that  there  is  a  like  difference  in  the  state  of  the 
family  life  of  the  two  countries.  Legislation,  in  other  words, 
may  simply  ignore  social  evils,  and  prohibit  in  appearance 
things  which  persist  in  reality.  While  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  the  divorce  laws  of  many  of  our  states  are  a  crime 
against  civilization,  because  they  have  set  low  moral 
standards,  yet  the  making  of  these  laws  stricter  may  not 
of  itself  greatly  check  the  decay  of  the  family.  Let  us 
note,  however,  some  of  the  proposed  reforms  which  seem 
feasible  with  reference  to  marriage  and  divorce,  because 
they  illustrate  the  difficulties  and  the  principles  of  scientific 
social  reconstruction  in  general. 

Proposed  Legislative  and  Judicial  Remedies  for  the  Divorce 
Evil,  (i)  The  first  of  these  which  might  be  mentioned  is 
a  uniform  divorce  and  marriage  law,  enacted  by  the  federal 
Congress  and  administered  by  the  federal  courts.  The 
enactment  of  such  a  law,  however,  would  require  an  amend- 
ment to  the  federal  Constitution.  Assuming  that  such 
amendment  is  possible,  a  uniform  marriage  and  divorce 
law  for  the  whole  United  States  is  certainly  desirable; 
for  such  a  fundamental  institution  as  the  family  should 
not  be  left  to  the  regulation  of  local  administrative  areas, 
such  as  our  states  are.  The  family  is  not  a  state  concern, 
but  a  national  concern.  However,  as  we  have  already 


iyo  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  MODERN   FAMILY 

implied,  the  family  problem  is  so  deep  that  a  mere  transfer 
of  the  laws  governing  marriage  and  divorce  from  the  statute 
books  of  the  states  to  the  statute  books  of  the  nation  would 
make  no  material  difference  in  the  problem.  There  can 
be  no  question  but  that  the  states  which  now  lead  in  di- 
vorce would  continue  to  lead.  In  Switzerland,  for  example, 
where  the  cantons  had  the  right  to  regulate  divorce  prior 
to  1876,  in  1906,  after  thirty  years  of  uniform  law,  the 
canton  of  Geneva  had  one  divorce  to  every  seven  marriages, 
while  the  canton  of  Valais  had  one  divorce  to  every  two 
hundred  and  fifty  marriages.  Nevertheless,  while  we  must 
not  expect  too  great  results  to  follow,  uniform  divorce 
and  marriage  laws  are  important  enough  to  be  worth 
working  for.  It  is  possible  that  such  uniformity  may  be 
brought  about  through  the  cooperative  action  of  our 
states  rather  than  through  an  amendment  to  the  federal 
Constitution. 

(2)  Of  more  importance  than  uniformity  in  divorce 
laws,  however,  is  reform  in  judicial  procedure  in  trying 
divorce  cases.  We  have  already  seen  that  very  often  divorce 
cases  are  rushed  through  our  courts,  not  only  without 
solemnity,  but  even  without  adequate  knowledge  of  the 
merits  of  the  cases.  This  has  resulted,  in  many  instances, 
in  divorce  being  granted,  in  effect,  upon  mutual  consent 
of  the  parties  —  something  never  contemplated  by  our 
divorce  legislation,  lax  though  it  be.  Two  reforms  may 
be  suggested  which  would  undoubtedly  correct  the  worst 
of  these  evils.  The  first  is  the  appointment,  in  every  court 
which  tries  divorce  cases,  of  a  Divorce  Proctor,  whose  duty 
shall  be  to  inquire  carefully  into  every  application  for 
divorce  to  see  whether  the  alleged  grounds  actually  exist 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  171 

and  whether  there  is  an  absence  of  collusion  or  fraud, 
and  then  to  advise  the  judge.  In  Kansas  City,  Missouri, 
the  appointment  of  such  a  divorce  proctor  resulted  in  cutting 
down  the  number  of  divorces  granted  nearly  thirty  per 
cent  in  a  single  year,  a  conclusive  proof  that  many  divorces 
had  previously  been  granted  upon  inadequate  grounds  or 
where  there  was  collusion  or  fraud. 

A  second  reform  in  judicial  procedure  in  granting  divorce, 
more  radical  than  the  first,  would  be  to  put  the  matter 
of  divorce  in  the  hands  of  special  Courts  of  Domestic 
Relations.  Such  courts  already  exist  in  several  cities,  but 
hitherto  their  control  over  divorce  cases  has  been  limited. 
It  would  seem  that  all  applications  for  the  dissolution  of 
family  bonds,  whether  between  husband  and  wife,  or  parents 
and  children,  should  come,  in  the  first  instance,  before  special 
tribunals  which  should  carefully  investigate  the  cases  to 
see  whether  the  welfare  of  society  would  be  subserved  by 
the  breaking  up  of  the  particular  family  or  not.  The  subor- 
dinate officers  of  such  courts  could  fully  establish  the  facts 
and  make  recommendations  to  the  judges,  while  the  judges 
in  turn  could,  in  many  instances,  reconcile  the  parties 
and  thus  preserve  the  unity  of  the  family.  This  has  been 
done  very  successfully  in  a  large  number  of  instances  by 
the  Court  of  Domestic  Relations  in  the  city  of  Chicago. 
Similar  practices  hi  Switzerland  have  also  been  found 
effective  in  bringing  about  the  reconciliation  of  many 
parties  seeking  divorce.  Such  work  by  the  courts  is  truly 
reconstructive  of  the  family,  and  cannot  be  too  highly 
commended.  The  trouble  is  that  in  a  majority  of  cases  it 
comes  too  late.  As  yet,  moreover,  such  Courts  of  Domestic 
Relations  exist  in  only  a  very  few  cities ;  and  even  where 


172  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

they  exist,  they  have  only  a  limited  jurisdiction  in  matters 
affecting  the  family. 

(3)  A  third  legislative  remedy  for  the  divorce  evil  would 
be  lessening  the  number  of  legal  grounds  for  absolute  di- 
vorce.    There  can  be  no  question  but  that  such  legislation 
is  desirable  in  many  of  our  states.     However,  such  legislation 
might  easily  make  the  mistake  of  going  too  far,  and  of  simply 
forcing  the  evil  beneath  the  surface.    A  practicable  divorce 
law  in  a  majority  of  our  states  at  the  present  time  would 
probably  have  to  recognize  the  five  or  six  most  serious 
grounds  for  divorce  which  we  have  already  discussed,  and 
for  which  over  ninety  per  cent  of  the  divorces  are  granted. 
Stricter  laws,  however,  in  many  of  our  states,  would  serve 
to  set  higher  standards  for  the  family  life  and  indirectly 
might  thus  do  considerable  to  lessen  the  instability  of  the 
family. 

(4)  Restrictions   upon   remarriage   of   divorced   parties 
might  also  do  something  to  reduce  the  instability  of  the 
family.     Statistics  in  the  United  States  seem  to  indicate 
that  from  thirty  to  fifty  per  cent  of  divorced  persons  re- 
marry, according  to  the  locality.     While  no  large  proportion 
of  divorces  are  sought  for  the  purpose  of  immediate  remar- 
riage, yet  some  are,  and  the  number  is  apparently  in- 
creasing.    If  restrictions  upon  remarriage  were  permanent, 
this  would  amount  to  making  divorce  merely  legal  separa- 
tion, and  might  be  at  the  present  time  a  practice  which 
would  be  socially  inexpedient.     On  the  other  hand,  the 
lax  laws  of  some  of  our  states  which  permit  immediate 
remarriage  upon  divorce  make  possible  frequent  remarriage 
on  the  part  of  divorce  "  repeaters  "  and  result  in  affronts  to 
public  decency.     Students  of  divorce,  therefore,  are  practi- 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE   MODERN  FAMILY  173 

cally  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  a  reasonable  time 
should  elapse  after  a  divorce  decree  has  been  granted 
before  remarriage  is  permitted.  This  is  probably  best 
secured  by  what  is  known  as  the  nisi,  or  conditional,  decree 
of  divorce,  which  becomes  absolute,  permitting  remarriage, 
only  after  a  period  of  one  or  two  years,  thus  allowing  the 
divorced  parties  to  effect  reconciliation  within  that  time 
without  the  formality  of  remarriage. 

(5)  Restrictions  upon  marriage  are  at  present  advocated 
by  certain  writers  as  a  remedy  for  the  instability  of  the 
family.  It  is  said  that  the  real  evil  is  not  the  divorce  evil, 
but  the  marriage  evil,  and  that  we  should  have  very  few 
divorces  in  society  if  we  had  wise  marriages.  This  may 
be  granted  without  accepting  the  view  that  legal  restrictions 
upon  marriage  would  do  much  to  make  our  family  life 
more  stable.  Wise  marriages  should,  of  course,  be  in  every 
way  encouraged  by  society,  but  thus  far  it  has  been  found 
possible  to  do  but  little  in  a  legal  way  to  bring  about 
such  marriages.  To  be  sure,  our  marriage  laws  are  still 
lax,  and  they  should  do  more  than  they  do ;  but  at  best 
marriage  laws  could  act  only  negatively,  that  is,  they  can 
prevent  to  some  extent  unwise  marriages,  but  can  do  but 
little  to  secure  wise  ones.  The  laws  might  safely  forbid, 
not  only  the  marriage  of  persons  of  immature  age,  of  de- 
fectives, of  those  afflicted  with  contagious  diseases,  but 
also  should  probably  prevent  the  marriage  of  persons  of 
too  great  difference  in  age,  and  of  different  races.  Farther 
than  this  the  laws  could  scarcely  go  with  safety.  In  all 
countries  where  property  restrictions  have  been  put  upon 
marriage,  or  where  the  legal  age  of  marriage  has  been 
placed  too  high,  a  great  increase  in  illegitimacy  has  resulted. 


174  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

Indeed,  the  general  policy  of  the  law  should  undoubtedly 
be  to  encourage  marriage  among  all  normal  persons  in 
society  and  certainly  not  to  make  marriage  difficult  for  such. 

What  law  cannot  accomplish  or  even  safely  attempt, 
however,  education,  public  opinion,  and  social  standards 
can.  It  is  to  the  power  of  these  rather  than  of  mere  legisla- 
tion that  we  must  look  for  stable  and  adequate  reconstruc- 
tion of  any  institution;  for  back  of  all  institutions  stand 
the  habits,  opinions,  and  standards  of  the  mass  of  individ- 
uals. The  chief  thing  which  is  wrong  with  American  family 
life  is  after  all  the  "mores,"  the  social  standards,  of  the 
American  people  in  regard  to  the  family.  Now,  the ' '  mores ' ' 
of  a  people  can  be  changed  for  the  better  only  in  one  way  — 
and  that  is  through  a  process  of  learning  on  the  part  of  the 
mass  of  the  people.  There  are  several  ways,  of  course,  in 
which  a  people  may  learn,  but  the  safest  and  most  econom- 
ical way  is  through  the  systematic  education  of  all  the 
people  in  social  matters.  The  social  education  of  individ- 
uals, especially  of  the  young,  is  the  key  to  the  scientific 
reconstruction  of  society.  Let  us  consider,  then,  more  in 
detail  social  education  as  a  means  of  reconstructing  our 
family  life. 

Social  Education  and  the  Reconstruction  of  the  Family. 
Education,  unlike  legislation,  can  easily  change  the  habits, 
opinions,  and  standards  of  individuals,  because  the  whole 
process  of  education  is  essentially  a  process  of  taking  on 
certain  habits,  ideas,  and  ideals  as  preparation  for  life. 
Legislation,  on  the  other  hand,  is  necessarily  external  and 
coercive.  It  affects  the  individual  for  the  most  part  too 
late  in  life  to  change  radically  his  habits  or  even  his  opinions. 
It  is  for  this  reason  that  legislation  has  so  rn^iny  short- 


THE   PROBLEM  OF  THE   MODERN  FAMILY  175 

comings  as  an  instrument  of  social  reconstruction  or  reform. 
Of  course,  neither  education  nor  legislation  should  be 
neglected  in  social  reconstruction.  Both  are  necessary 
and  supplement  each  other.  Wise  legislation  must  rest 
upon  the  opinions,  ideals,  and  habits  of  the  people  already 
formed  through  education.  On  the  other  hand  no  public 
system  of  education  can  exist  unless  it  is  supported  by 
I  appropriate  legislation. 

In  this  matter  of  reconstructing  our  family  life,  therefore, 
the  main  reliance  must  be  placed  upon  the  education  which 
the  school,  the  church,  and  the  home  can  give  to  the  rising 
generation.  Until  children  are  taught  to  look  upon  the 
family  as  a  socially  necessary  and  therefore  sacred  institu- 
tion, until  they  are  taught  to  look  upon  marriage  as  some- 
thing other  than  an  act  to  suit  their  own  convenience  and 
pleasure,  we  must  expect  that  our  family  life  will  be  un- 
stable. While  the  reconstruction  of  our  family  lif e  practi- 
cally involves  the  reconstruction  of  our  whole  social  life, 
as  we  have  already  pointed  out,  yet  the  key  to  the  situation 
in  any  event  is  the  social  education  of  the  young,  because 
only  through  such  education  can  right  ideals  concerning 
marriage  and  the  family  be  acquired.  The  importance 
of  a  pure  and  wholesome  family  life  should,  therefore, 
(be  emphasized  by  our  whole  system  of  public  education 
from  beginning  to  end.  This  can  readily  be  done  even  in 
the  lowest  grades  through  throwing  the  emphasis  upon  the 
importance  of  the  home  and  the  family  in  all  social  activities 
and  relationships.  Here,  of  course,  would  enter  instruc- 
tion in  the  domestic  sciences  and  arts  in  our  public  schools ; 
also  education  for  parenthood  so  far  as  it  is  practicable  to 
give  such  education  in  the  public  school. 


1 76  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

The  institution  in  society,  however,  which  is  especially 
charged  with  the  task  of  conserving  and  propagating  social 
ideals  is  the  church.  It  is  evident  that  a  large  responsi- 
bility for  right  ideals  concerning  marriage  and  the  family 
must  rest  upon  the  church.  Unless  the  church  teaches 
such  ideals,  other  institutions  in  society  will  not  teach  them 
to  any  extent.  So  far  as  the  Christian  church  is  concerned, 
it  may  be  suggested  that  the  first  social  task  of  the  present 
church  should  be,  as  it  was  of  the  primitive  church,  the  re- 
constituting of  a  stable  and  pure  family  life. 

It  may  be  admitted,  however,  that  the  chief  education 
along  these  lines  must  come  in  the  home  itself.  Only  there, 
can  the  truest  respect  for  marriage  and  the  family  be  ef- 
fectively inculcated  in  the  young.  Many  homes  are,  how- 
ever, already  so  demoralized  in  this  respect,  that  we  can- 
not expect  that  children  will  receive  the  right  ideas  from 
their  home  life.  Hence  the  importance  of  supplementing  the 
moral  education  along  these  lines  which  has  hitherto  been 
given  mainly  in  the  home,  by  explicit  education  in  our 
public  schools  and  in  our  Sunday  schools.  The  situation  is, 
however,  not  so  difficult  as  might  seem,  for  we  must  re- 
member that  imitation  hi  society  moves  from  the  socially 
superior  to  the  socially  inferior  classes.  Proper  social ' 
leadership  in  this  matter  of  educating  the  child  adequately 
hi  the  school,  the  church,  and  the  home  in  everything  which 
pertains  to  the  family  would  insure  a  great  improvement 
within  a  single  generation.  There  is  no  reason,  then,  for 
pessimism;  but  it  is  evident  that  effective  work  along  this 
line  has  hardly  yet  begun. 

A  Normal  Family  Life  evidently  requires  not  only  proper 
physical  conditions,  sufficient  income  to  maintain  a  decent 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  177 

standard  of  living,1  and  ethical,  democratic  relations  be- 
tween its  members,  but,  above  all,  consideration  of  the 
child.  It  is  this  last  which  marks  the  fully  socialized  family; 
for  the  welfare  of  the  race  and  of  society  is  bound  up  with 
the  welfare  of  the  child.  Child  welfare  may,  indeed,  in 
one  sense  be  said  to  be  the  central  problem  of  civilization.. 
For  this  reason,  the  child  has  always  been  and  must  con- 
tinue to  be  the  center  of  gravity,  so  to  speak,  in  any  normal 
family  life.  Any  discussion  of  the  family,  therefore,  which 
fails  to  make  the  welfare  of  the  child  that  is,  or  may  be, 
born,  the  matter  of  the  highest  importance  in  the  family 
life  misses  the  whole  point.  On  the  other  hand,  any  dis- 
cussion of  child  welfare  which  fails  to  recognize  the  family 
as  the  normal  environment  of  the  child  also  misses  the 
point.  For  so-called  children's  institutions,  juvenile  courts, 
and  other  child-saving  agencies  are  very  inadequate  sub- 
stitutes for  a  normal  home.  The  securing  of  a  normal 
family  life  for  all  classes  is,  then,  the  indispensable  thing 
needed  for  child  welfare;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  normal 
family  life  must  be  centered  in  the  child. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  way  which  must  be  followed 
to  secure  the  solution  of  the  many  problems  connected  with 
our  family  life  becomes  clear.  For  example,  whether  a 
particular  family  should  be  dissolved  or  not  is  a  matter 
which  should  be  decided  upon  the  basis,  not  primarily  of 
the  happiness  of  husband  and  wife,  but  rather  of  the  wel- 
fare of  the  children  involved;  and  society,  of  course,  can- 
not afford  to  set  up  one  standard  for  couples  with  children 
and  another  standard  for  couples  without  children,  as  that 

1  The  student  should  review  what  was  said  in  Chapter  IV  about  the  in- 
fluence of  industrial  conditions  in  undermining  a  normal  family  life. 


178  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

would  place  a  premium  upon  childlessness.  Again,  the 
labor  of  married  women  outside  of  the  home,  the  labor  of 
children  themselves,  wages  and  hours  of  breadwinners, 
and  even  the  building  of  our  cities  must  be  regulated  upon 
the  basis  of  child  welfare.  Finally,  the  unsocialized  in- 
dividualism of  our  "mores"  with  reference  to  marriage  and 
the  family  must  be  modified  for  the  sake  of  the  child. 
This  last  is  the  most  needed  reform  of  all,  for  the  instability 
,  of  the  American  family  is  rooted,  not  so  much  in  our  in- 
dustrial conditions  as  in  our  "mores,"  as  is  shown  by  such 
facts  as  that  divorces  usually  increase  with  economic 
prosperity,  and  that  American  industrial  development  is 
of  the  same  general  type  as  that  of  European  countries 
which  have  a  more  stable  family  life. 

It  may  be  pointed  out  that  in  emphasizing  child  welfare 
as  the  basis  for  deciding  problems  of  the  family,  there  is  no 
necessary  sacrifice  of  the  moral  and  social  welfare  of  adults. 
Any  system  of  morality  which  is  social  in  its  aim  must 
place  a  premium  upon  the  development  of  altruism.  The 
moral  character  of  adults,  in  other  words,  can  best  be  safe- 
guarded by  emphasizing  the  claims  which  society  and  the 
race  have  upon  the  individual;  and  the  child  stands,  as  we 
have  said,  for  society  and  the  race,  and  so  for  the  develop- 
ment of  the  higher  altruism. 

Conclusions  for  Social  Reconstruction.  —  The  study 
of  the  problem  of  reconstructing  our  family  life  furnishes 
certain  conclusions  regarding  social  reconstruction  in  gen- 
eral which  are  worth  emphasizing.  Social  reconstruction, 
as  we  have  seen  from  the  problem  of  reconstructing  our 
family  life,  always  involves  reconstructing  the  "mores." 
But  this  cannot  be  accomplished  by  mere  force  or  coercive 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY  17 

legislation.  It  can  be  accomplished  only  by  a  process  of 
educating  the  whole  people.  The  press,  the  school,  and  the 
church  must  be  the  prime  agents  for  accomplishing  such  a 
process  of  education.  Free  public  discussion  and  the  free 
formation  of  public  opinion  under  the  guidance  of  social 
leaders  are  also  necessary  before  a  definite  social  decision 
can  be  reached  which  will  change  social  standards.  Only 
when  public  opinion  and  public  sentiment  have  so  crystal- 
lized that  social  standards  have  already  practically  changed, 
is  it  wise  to  pass  coercive  laws.  Even  then  laws  must  be 
supported  by  the  active  forces  of  government,  education, 
morality,  and  religion,  if  they  are  to  be  effective  and  the 
habits  of  the  people  definitely  changed.  All  agencies  of 
social  control,  in  other  words,  must  be  enlisted.  Moreover, 
economic  conditions  and  conditions  in  the  physical  environ- 
ment must  also  be  so  changed  as  to  be  favorable  to  the  new 
standards  if  they  are  to  be  successful.  If,  on  the  other  hand, 
laws  are  enacted  without  such  a  process  of  popular  education 
and  without  the  free  formation  of  a  public  opinion,  they 
will  not  represent  the  popular  will  and  must  sooner  or 
later  prove  a  failure.  The  same  thing  is  evidently  true  if 
they  are  not  actively  supported  by  political,  educational, 
moral,  and  religious  agencies  after  enactment,  and  if  appro- 
priate changes  in  the  material  conditions  of  life  are  not 
made.  In  stable  social  reconstruction  society  must  move 
as  a  unit;  but  social  education  is  the  key  to  its  successful 
prosecution.  '  _  ^O^Z^fcfcr 

1  s^^^-^T  \J 

SELECT  REFERENCES 
For  brief  reading: 

ADLER,  Marriage  and  Divorce,  Chap.  II. 

BLACKMAR  and  GILLIN,  Outlines  of  Sociology,  Part  II,  Chap.  VT. 


l8o  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  MODERN  FAMILY 

ELLWOOD,  The  Social  Problem,  Chaps.  I,  II. 

GOODSELL,  The  Family  as  a  Social  and  Educational  Institution,  Chaps. 
XIII-XIV. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

CALHOUN,  Social  History  of  the  American  Family,  Vol.  III. 
DEALEY,  The  Family  in  its  Sociological  Aspects,  Chaps.  VII-XI. 
HOWARD,  History  of  Matrimonial  Institutions,  Vol.  Ill,  Chap.  XVIII. 
LICHTENBERGER,  Divorce:  A  Study  in  Social  Causation, 
TODD,  "Democracy  in  the  Family"  in  Democracy  in  Reconstruction, 

Chap.  V. 

WILLCOX,  The  Divorce  Problem:  A  Study  in  Statistics. 
Special  Report  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  1867-1906,  Census  Bureau. 
Special  Report  on  Marriage  and  Divorce,  1916,  Census  Bureau. 

On  Social  Reconstruction  in  general: 

FRIEDMAN,  America  and  the  New  Era. 

CLEVELAND  and  SCHAFER,  Democracy  in  Reconstruction. 

ROGERS,  The  Problems  of  Reconstruction,  No.  135  of  the  publications  of 

the  Am.  Assoc.  for  International  Conciliation. 
Report  on  Reconstruction,  by  Sub-Committee  of  the  British  Labor  Party. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

Mass  as  a  Factor  in  Social  Evolution.  —  Mass  is  a  fac- 
tor in  the  survival  of  a  social  group.  Other  things  being 
equal,  that  group  will  stand  the  best  chance  of  surviving 
which  has  the  greatest  numbers.  In  a  large  and  growing 
population  also,  competition  will  be  keener,  selection 
more  stringent,  and  hence  the  level  of  efficiency  will  tend 
to  rise. 

"  Civilization  is  a  function  of  numbers  and  of  the  contact 
of  numbers,"  as  Professor  Keller  says,  however,  not  so 
much  because  of  the  two  facts  just  mentioned,  as  because 
of  the  fact  that  the  larger  the  mass  of  a  given  group  the 
greater  can  be  the  industrial  and  cultural  division  of  labor. 
This  means  higher,  more  complex  social  cooperation  and 
so  greater  progress  in  industry  and  in  civilization.  With 
the  proper  organization  and  division  of  labor  of  large  num- 
bers the  mastery  over  nature  becomes  easier.  For  this 
reason  the  higher  types  of  industry  and  of  civilization  have 
depended  upon  the  growth  of  numbers  as  one  important 
factor.  As  we  pass  from  savagery  to  civilization  we  find 
population  constantly  increasing.  The  lowest  savage 
hordes  have  scarcely  ever  more  than  forty  or  fifty  individ- 
uals, while  not  until  high  civilization  is  reached  do  we 
find  nations  numbering  many  millions.  There  is  thus 

181 


182  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

an  intimate  connection  between  numbers  and  a  high  state 
of  civilization. 

Perhaps  the  chief  reason  for  this  is  that  the  human  mind 
gets  practically  all  of  its  development  through  contact 
with  other  minds,  and  hence  the  multiplication  of  mental 
contacts  is  favorable  to  both  mental  and  cultural  develop- 
ment. Provided  there  is  relatively  free  intercommunication 
maintained  between  individuals,  mental  interstimulation 
can  be  immensely  more  rich,  varied,  and  intense  in  a  large 
population  than  in  a  small  one.  The  number  and  variety 
of  ideas  in  circulation  hi  a  large  group  is  greatly  increased, 
and  hence  the  opportunities  for  the  selection  of  valuable 
ideas  is  also  increased.  Hence  inventions  of  all  sorts  are 
stimulated  by  the  increased  contacts  and  needs  of  great 
masses  of  men. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  obvious  that  population  may 
exceed  resources,  that  its  increase  makes  the  social  life  and 
its  problems  more  complex  and  may  greatly  intensify  the 
struggle  or  competition  between  individuals  and  groups. 

The  questions  which  center  around  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion, accordingly,  are  among  the  most  important  with 
which  sociology  has  to  deal.  These  questions  are,  of  course, 
closely  connected  with  the  family  life,  since  the  growth  of 
population  in  the  world  as  a  whole  is  dependent  upon  the 
excess  of  births  over  deaths.  However,  the  growth  of  pop- 
ulation has  so  long  been  looked  upon  as  a  national  question 
that  perhaps  it  will  be  best  to  study  it  from  the  standpoint 
of  the  national  group.  The  population  of  modern  national 
groups,  the  influences  which  augment  and  deter  the  growth 
of  population,  and  the  laws  of  population  in  general,  will 
be  what  will  concern  us  in  this  chapter. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 


183 


Population  Statistics  of  Some  Modern  Nations. — The 
following  table  of  statistics  will  show  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion in  the  largest  nations  of  Europe  and  America  during  the 
nineteenth  century : 1 


Population 
1801 

Population 
1901 

Population 
1910 

Annual 
Rate  ot 
Increase, 
per  cent 

Russia  (in  Europe)  

40,000,000 

106,159,000 

133,850,000 

2.OI 

Germany  

24,000,000 

56,367,000 

64,925,000 

1.40 

France  

26,930,000 

38,961,000 

39,601,000 

0.17 

Great  Britain  and  Ireland 
Austria-Hungary  

16,345,000 
25,000,000 

41,976,000 
4=c,  ^10,000 

45,37o,ooo 

40,  4  1  4,  COO 

0.91 

O.QI 

Italy..  . 

17,500,000 

32,475,000 

34,671,000 

0.65 

Spain  

10,500,000 

18,618,000 

19,588,000 

O.52 

United  States               .... 

15,108,000 

76,303,000 

02,284,000 

2.IO 

This  table  shows  that  while  the  population  of  nearly  all  of 
these  nations  increased  rapidly  within  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, the  rate  of  increase  has  been  relatively  unequal.     If  we 
project  Russia's  increase  of  population  to  the  year  2000  A.D.,. 
we  shall  find  that  its  probable  population  will  be  in  the 
neighborhood  of  300,000,000 ;   Germany's  probable  popula- 
tion, say   120,000,000;  while  France's  probable  popula- 
tion in  the  year  2000,  if  it  continues  to  increase  only  at 
its  present  slow  rate,  will  be  but  45,000,000.    While  the 
Great  War  has  rendered  all  forecasts  of  population  un- 
certain and  while  these  cannot  be  considered  certain  in  any 

1In  the  above  table  the  populations  of  Russia,  Germany,  Austria- 
Hungary,  Italy,  and  Spain  for  1801  are  estimates.  The  population  given  for 
Russia  in  1901  is  that  of  the  official  census  of  1897 ;  in  1910  the  estimate 
of  the  Central  Statistical  Committee.  The  population  of  the  United 
States  for  1910  includes  Alaska  and  Hawaii,  but  not  Porto  Rico. 


1 84  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

sense,  still  they  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  growth 
of  modern  nations  in  population  is  relatively  unequal. 
Inasmuch  as  the  mere  element  of  numbers  is  one  of  the 
greatest  factors  for  the  future  greatness  of  any  nation, 
this  is  a  highly  important  matter.  A  nation  of  only 
40,000,000  a  century  hence,  it  is  safe  to  say,  will  be  no 
more  important  than  Holland  and  Belgium  are  now. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  probable  that  a  century 
hence  the  civilized  nations  that  lead  in  population  will 
also  lead  in  industrial  and  cultural  development.  Many 
other  factors,  of  course,  enter  into  the  situation,  but  the 
factor  of  mere  numbers  should  not  be  neglected,  as  all 
practical  statesmen  recognize. 

A  century  hence  it  is  probable  that  the  population  of 
continental  United  States  will  be  about  300,000,000.  It 
would  be  considerably  more  than  this  if  the  present  annual 
rate  of  increase  were  to  continue,  but  inasmuch  as  that 
is  not  likely,  an  estimate  of  300,000,000  is  sufficiently 
high.1  We  have  already  seen  that  it  is  probable  that 
Russia's  population  may  equal  300,000,000  by  the  year 
2000.  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  the  United 
States  and  Russia  may  be  the  two  great  world  powers 
a  century  hence,  —  particularly  if  Russia  emerges  from  its 
present  social  and  political  troubles  and  takes  on  fully 
Western  civilization, — while  the  other  nations  may  tend 
to  ally  themselves  with  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  great 
world  powers.  Of  course,  China  is  the  X  —  the  unknown 

JIn  an  article  on  "Prospective  Population  of  the  United  States,"  in 
Science,  Oct.  6, 1911,  Dr.  W  J  McGee  estimates  the  population  of  the  United 
States  in  the  year  2000  at  348,000,000 ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  estimate  of 
Henry  Gannett,  geographer  of  the  Census  Bureau,  is  249,000,000. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  185 

quantity  —  in  the  world's  future.  Should  its  immense 
population  absorb  Western  civilization,  this  would  cer- 
tainly bring  into  the  theater  of  the  world's  political  evolu- 
tion a  new  and  important  factor. 

The  population  and  vital  statistics  of  the  various  civi- 
lized countries  show :  — 

(1)  The  population  of  all  civilized  countries,  with  one 
or  two  exceptions,  has  been  increasing  rapidly  since  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century.     Previous  to  that 
time  we  have  no  statistics  that  are  reliable,  but  it  seems 
probable  that  the  population  of  Europe  stood  practically 
stationary  during  the  Middle  Ages  and  increased  only 
slowly  down  to  the  nineteenth  century;    but  during  the 
nineteenth  century  the  population  of  the  leading  indus- 
trial nations  increased  very  rapidly.    This  was  due  pri- 
marily, without  doubt,  to  improved  economic  conditions, 
which  made  it  possible  for  a  larger  population  to  subsist 
within  a  given  area.     Back  of  these  improved  economic 
conditions,  however,  has  been  increased  scientific  knowledge 
of  ways  of  mastering  physical  nature,  and  accompanying 
them  has  been  a  very  greatly  decreased  death  rate,  due  in 
part  at  least  to  the  advance  of  medical  science. 

(2)  This  increase  in  population  has  been  due,  not  to  an 
increase  in  birth  rate,  but  to  a  decreased  death  rate.     During 
the  nineteenth  century  the  death  rate  decreased  markedly 
in  practically  all  civilized  countries.    As  we  have  already 
noted,  this  was  due  primarily  to  improved  living  conditions, 
particularly  in  the  food,  clothing,  and  shelter  for  the  masses, 
but  it  was  also  due  in  no  small  part  to  the  advance  in  medical 
science,  especially  that  branch  of  it  known  as  "  public  sani- 
tation."    Because  the  death  rate  decreases  with  improved 


x86  THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

material  conditions,  and  probably  also  with  improved 
moral  conditions,  it  is  a  relatively  good  measure,  at  least  of 
the  material  civilization  or  progress  of  a  people.  We  may 
note  that  the  death  rate  is  measured  by  the  number  of  deaths 
that  occur  annually  per  thousand  in  a  given  population. 
The  death  rate  of  the  countries  most  advanced  in  sanitary 
science  and  in  industrial  improvement  apparently  tends 
to  establish  itself  around  fifteen  per  thousand  annually.1 

(3)  The  birth  rate  of  civilized  countries  also  declined 
markedly  during  the  nineteenth  century,  especially  during 
the  latter  half.  On  the  whole,  this  was  a  good  thing. 
The  birth  rate  should  decrease  with  the  death  rate.  This 
leaves  more  energy  to  be  used  in  other  things ;  but  when 
the  birth  rate  falls  more  rapidly  than  the  death  rate  or 
falls  beyond  a  certain  point,  it  is  evident  that  the  normal 
growth  of  a  nation  is  hindered,  and  even  its  extinction  may 
be  threatened.  While  an  excessively  high  birth  rate  is 
a  sign  of  low  culture  on  the  whole,  on  the  other  hand  an 
excessively  low  birth  rate  is  a  sign  of  physical  and  probably 
moral  degeneracy  in  the  population.  When  the  birth 
rate  is  lower  than  the  death  rate  in  a  given  population, 
it  is  evident  that  the  population  is  on  the  way  to  extinc- 
tion. Such  a  birth  rate  is  manifestly  abnormal.  In 
order  that  a  birth  rate  be  normal,  therefore,  it  must  be 
sufficiently  above  the  death  rate  to  provide  for  the  normal 
growth  of  the  population.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  safe  to 

1  The  most  competent  authorities  in  vital  statistics  hold  that  under  present 
conditions  of  knowledge,  the  corrected  death  rate  cannot  go  much  below 
fifteen  for  any  considerable  length  of  time.  Even  a  death  rate  of  fifteen 
in  a  stationary  population  would  mean  an  average  length  of  life  of  sixty-six 
and  two  thirds  years. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 


187 


conclude  that  we  have  no  better  index  of  the  vitality  of  a 
people,  that  is,  of  their  capacity  to  survive,  than  the  surplus 
of  births  over  deaths.  Such  a  surplus  of  births  over  deaths 
is  also  a  fairly  trustworthy  index  of  the  living  conditions  of  a 
population,  because  if  the  living  conditions  are  poor,  no 
matter  how  high  the  birth  rate  may  be,  the  death  rate 
will  be  correspondingly  high,  and  the  surplus  of  births  over 
deaths,  therefore,  relatively  low. 

Vital  statistics  are,  therefore,  an  indication  of  more 
than  the  mere  health  or  even  the  material  condition  of 
a  given  population.  Probably  there  are  no  social  facts 
from  which  we  may  gather  a  clearer  insight  into  the  social 
conditions  of  a  given  population  than  vital  statistics. 

Without  going  into  the  vital  statistics  of  modern  nations 
in  any  detail,  the  following  table  of  birth  rates  and  death 
rates  in  three  leading  European  nations  will  serve  to  illustrate 
the  decrease  in  the  death  rate  and  the  birth  rate  among 
civilized  people  in  general,  the  birth  rate  being  computed 
the  same  as  the  death  rate,  that  is,  the  number  of  births  per 
thousand  annually  of  the  population : 

DEATH  RATE 


1871-1890 

1890-1899 

1900-1909 

England  and  Wales  

20.3 

l8.A 

i<.8 

Germany  

26.0 

22.? 

IQ.C 

France  

22.8 

21.6 

19.8 

BIRTH   RATE 


1871-1890 

1890-1899 

1900-1909 

England  and  Wales  

34-O 

?O.I 

27.6 

Germany  

18.1 

*6.2 

34-O 

France  

24.6 

22.6 

20.8 

188  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

The  preceding  table  shows,  not  only  that  birth  rates  and 
death  rates  have  been  declining  among  civilized  peoples, 
but  that  the  decline  has  been  unequal  in  different  peoples. 
In  the  case  of  England  the  excess  of  births  over  deaths  in 
the  decade  1900-1909  was  n.8  per  thousand  of  the  popula- 
tion annually;  in  the  case  of  Germany,  14.5;  while  for 
France  it  was  only  i.o.  In  the  years  just  before  the  Great 
War  the  excess  of  births  over  deaths  in  Germany  was  larger 
than  in  any  other  great  European  nation.  During  the  same 
period  the  excess  of  births  over  deaths  in  France  was  in- 
significant, and  in  some  years  the  number  of  deaths  in 
France  actually  exceeded  the  number  of  births.  During 
the  War  the  birth  rate  of  France  fell  nearly  one  haK  —  to 
10  per  thousand  annually. 

The  causes  of  the  stationary  population  of  France  are 
probably  mainly  economic,  although  all  the  factors  which 
influence  the  family  life  in  any  degree  must  also  influence 
birth  rate.  For  a  number  of  years  the  economic  conditions 
of  France  have  not  been  favorable  to  the  growth  of  a  large 
population,  and  at  the  same  time  the  law  necessitating  the 
equal  division  of  the  family's  property  among  children 
has  tended  to  encourage  small  families,  especially  in  the 
agricultural  population.  Unquestionably,  however,  other 
factors  of  a  more  general  social  or  moral  nature  are  also  at 
work  in  France  as  well  as  in  all  other  populations  that  are 
decreasing  in  numbers. 

There  are  no  vital  statistics  in  the  United  States  com- 
parable with  those  we  have  cited  of  representative  European 
countries.  In  the  "registration  area"  of  the  United 
States,  containing  a  little  over  half  of  the  total  population, 
the  death  rate  for  the  decade  1900-1909  was  15.8,  while 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  189 

the  birth  rate  in  seven  of  the  leading  states  in  the  year  1910 
was  25. 

The  Decrease  in  the  Native  White  Stock  in  the  United 
States.  Certain  classes  in  the  United  States  also  show  a 
very  slight  surplus  of  births  over  deaths  and  in  some  cases 
absolutely  declining  numbers.  In  general  the  United 
States  Census  statistics  seem  to  indicate  that  the  native 
white  stock  in  the  Northern  states  is  not  keeping  up  its 
numbers.  This  is  suggested  by  the  decreasing  size  of  the 
average  family  in  the  United  States.  The  average  size  of 
the  family  in  the  United  States  in  1850  was  5.6  persons; 
in  1860,  5.3;  in  1870,  5.1;  in  1880,  5.0;  in  1890,  4.9;  in 
1900,  4.7 ;  and  in  1910,  4.5.  If  we  include  only  private 
families  in  1900,  the  average  size  of  the  family  was  only  4.6. 
Thus,  between  1850  and  1900  the  size  of  the  average  family 
in  the  United  States  decreased  by  one  full  person.  This 
decrease  is  most  evident  in  the  North  Atlantic  and  North 
Central  states.  In  rural  New  England,  according  to  the 
Census  of  1910,  the  average  size  of  the  family  was  only 
four  persons. 

Moreover,  the  vital  statistics  kept  by  the  state  of  Massa- 
chusetts for  a  long  number  of  years  show  conclusively 
that  the  native  white  stock  in  that  state  is  tending  to  die 
out.  In  1910,  for  example,  in  Massachusetts  the  native 
bora  had  a  birth  rate  of  only  14.8,  while  the  foreign  born 
had  a  birth  rate  of  49.5.  But  the  death  rate  among  the 
native  bom  in  Massachusetts  in  1910  was  16.3 ;  while 
among  the  foreign  born  it  was  15.5.  Thus  among  the  native 
born  the  number  of  deaths  was  greater  than  the  number  of 
births  by  1.5  per  thousand  of  their  population  annually; 
while  among  the  foreign  born  the  excess  of  births  over 


i  go 


THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 


deaths  was  34.0  per  thousand  of  their  population.  Again, 
the  following  table  of  birth  rates  and  death  rates  for  1890 
in  the  city  of  Boston1  for  the  native  born  and  sections  of 
the  foreign  born  shows  conclusively  that  the  native-born 
element  is  not  keeping  up  its  numbers : 


Birth  Rate 

Death  Rate 

Native  born  

16.40 

17.20 

Irish   

4=;.  60 

2?.  2O 

Germans                  

48.00 

IS.OO 

Russian  Jews         .          

04.60 

i  ;.QO 

Italians  

104.60 

2^.30 

It  is  evident  from  this  table  that  the  foreign-born  element 
is  increasing  in  Boston  very  rapidly  in  numbers  through 
birth,  while  the  native  born  are  not  even  holding  their 
own.  The  high  birth  rate  of  the  foreign  born  is,  of  course, 
in  part  to  be  explained  through  the  fact  that  the  foreign- 
born  population  is  made  up  for  the  most  part  of  individuals 
in  the  prime  of  life,  that  is,  in  the  reproductive  age.  Never- 
theless, while  this  explains  the  excessively  high  birth  rate 
of  some  of  the  foreign-born  elements,  it  does  not  explain 
the  great  discrepancy  between  their  birth  rate  and  that  of 
the  native  born.  If  present  tendencies  continue,  it  is 
apparently  not  difficult  to  foresee  a  time  in  the  not  very 
distant  future  when  the  old  Puritan  New  England  families 

1  Taken  from  Bushee's  Ethnic  Factors  in  the  Population  of  Boston,  Publi- 
cations American  Economic  Association,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  2, 1903.  More  recent 
statistics  indicate  practically  the  same  results.  Thus  in  1910  the  birth  rate 
among  the  native  born  in  Boston  was  14.6,  while  among  the  foreign  born  it 
was  47.1.  The  death  rate  among  the  native  born  in  1910  was  17,  among  the 
foreign  born,  17.3. 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  !9I 

will  be  replaced  in  the  population  of  Massachusetts  and 
Boston  almost  entirely  by  the  descendants  of  recent  im- 
migrants. 

Moreover,  so  far  as  vital  statistics  concerning  different 
classes  can  be  gathered  in  the  northern  tier  of  the  states, 
practically  everywhere  the  same  tendencies  are  manifest; 
that  is,  everywhere  we  find  the  native-born  white  popu- 
lation failing  to  hold  its  own  alongside  of  the  more  recent 
immigrants.  Apparently,  therefore,  we  must  conclude 
that  the  birth  rate  of  the  native  whites  in  the  United  States 
is  declining  to  such  an  extent  that  that  element  in  our 
population  threatens  to  become  extinct  if  present  tendencies 
continue.  Only  the  Southern  whites  present  an  exception 
to  this  generalization.  The  Southern  white  people,  from 
various  causes  not  well  understood,  —  partly,  perhaps, 
from  family  pride,  partly,  perhaps,  from  racial  instinct, 
but  even  more  probably  on  account  of  certain  economic 
conditions,  —  keep  up  their  numbers,  increasing  more  rap- 
idly even  than  the  negro  population  which  exists  alongside 
of  them. 

Causes  of  the  Decrease  in  Birth  Rate  in  the  Native  White 
Stock  in  the  United  States.  What,  then,  are  the  causes 
of  this  decrease  in  the  birth  rate  of  the  native  white  stock 
in  the  United  States?  It  is  worth  our  while  to  inquire 
briefly  into  these  causes,  for  they  illustrate  the  factors 
which  are  at  work  in  favoring  or  deterring  the  growth  of 
population.  They  are  not  only  of  special  interest  to  us  as 
affecting  conditions  in  our  own  country,  but  they  are  typ- 
ical of  the  influences  which  determine  the  survival  or  ex- 
tinction of  peoples. 

(i)     Economic  conditions  are  without  doubt  mainly  at 


IQ2  THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

the  bottom  of  the  decreasing  birth  rate  in  the  native  white 
American  population.  Certain  unfavorable  economic  con- 
ditions have  developed  in  this  country  of  recent  years  for 
this  particular  element;  especially  have  higher  standards 
of  living  increased  among  the  native  white  population 
in  the  United  States  more  rapidly  than  their  income. 
This  has  led  to  later  marriages  and  smaller  families. 
Again,  more  intense  competition  along  all  lines  has  forced 
certain  elements  of  the  native  stock  into  occupations  where 
wages  are  low  in  comparison  with  the  standard  of  living. 
This  has,  perhaps,  especially  come  about  through  the 
increased  competition  which  the  foreign  born  have  offered 
to  the  native  white  element.  The  foreign  born  have 
taken  rapidly  all  the  places  which  might  be  filled  by 
unskilled  labor  and  many  of  the  places  filled  by  skilled 
labor.  The  native  born  have  shrunk  from  this  compe- 
tition and  have  retired  for  the  most  part  to  the  more 
socially  honorable  occupations,  such  as  clerkships  in 
business,  the  professions,  and  the  like.  In  many  of  these 
occupations,  however,  as  we  have  already  said,  the  wages 
are  low  as  compared  with  the  standards  of  living  main- 
tained by  that  particular  occupational  class;  hence,  as 
we  have  already  said,  later  marriages  and  fewer  children. 
Rising  standards  of  living  and  rising  costs  of  living  have, 
therefore,  impinged  more  heavily  upon  the  native  born 
than  upon  the  foreign  born.  It  is  difficult  to  suggest  a 
remedy  for  this  condition  of  affairs.  No  legislator  can 
devise  means  of  encouraging  a  class  to  have  large  families 
when  by  so  doing  that  class  would  necessarily  have  to 
sacrifice  some  of  its  standards  of  living.  However,  it  may 
be  that  the  native  born  can  be  protected  to  some  extent 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 


193 


from  the  competition  of  the  foreign  born  through  reason- 
able restrictions  upon  immigration,  and  it  may  also  be 
that  unreasonable  advances  in  standards  of  living  may 
be  checked,  but  both  of  these  propositions  seem  to  be  of 
somewhat  doubtful  nature. 

(2)  No  doubt  the  pressure  of  economic  conditions  is 
not  responsible  for  small  families  in  some  elements  of  the 
native  white  population  in  the  United  States,  for  often-; 
times  the  smallest  families  are  found  among  the  wealthy, 
among  whom  there  could  be  no  danger  of  a  large  family 
lowering  the  standards  of  living  or  pressing  upon  other 
economic  needs.  We  must  accept  as  a  second  factor  in 
the  situation,  therefore,  the  inherent  selfishness  in  human 
nature  which  is  not  willing  to  be  burdened  with  the  care 
of  children.  In  other  countries,  and  apparently  hi  all 
ages,  the  wealthy  have  been  characterized  by  smaller 
families  than  the  poor.  The  following  table  from  Ber- 
tillon,1  showing  the  number  of  births  per  thousand  women 
between  fifteen  and  fifty  years  of  age  in  Paris,  Berlin, 
and  London  among  the  various  economic  classes,  shows 
conclusively  that  it  is  not  altogether  the  pressure  of  eco- 
nomic wants  which  leads  to  the  limiting  of  a  population: 
BIRTHS  PER  THOUSAND  WOMEN  PER  ANNUM 


Paris. 

Berlin. 

London.    - 

Very  poor  

108 

157 

147 

Poor  

95 

129 

140 

Comfortable  

72 

114 

107 

Rich  

S3 

63 

87 

Very  rich  

7A 

47 

63 

Quoted  by  Newsholme,  Vital  Statistics,  p.  75. 


194  THE   GROWTH  OF   POPULATION 

(3)  Besides   economic    conditions    and   individual   sel- 
fishness we  must  unfortunately  add  another  cause  of  de- 
creasing  birth  rate  in   our   population   which   has   been 
definitely  ascertained,  and  that  is  vice.     Vice  cuts  the 
birth  rate  chiefly  through  the  diseases  which  accompany  it. 
About  20  per  cent  of  American  marriages  are  childless,  and 
medical  authorities  state  that  in  one  half  of  these  childless 
marriages  the  barrenness  is  due  to  venereal  diseases.    All 
authorities  in  medical  sociology  agree  that  a  large  per  cent 
of  the  young  men  of  the  United  States  become  addicted  to 
sex  vice   before  marriage.     This   serves   to   disseminate 
venereal   diseases   among   the   general   population,    espe- 
cially among  innocent  women  and  children.     The  conse- 
quence is,  on  the  one  hand,  a  considerable  number  of 
sterile  marriages  and  on  the  other  hand  a  high  infant 
mortality.    It  need  not  be  assumed,  as  we  have  already 
said,  that  vice  is  more  prevalent  to-day  than  in  previous 
generations,  but  on  account  of  the  conditions  of  our  so- 
cial life  diseases  which  accompany  vice  are  now  more 
widejy  disseminated  than  they  have  been  at  any  time 
in  our  previous  history;  therefore,  even  the  physical  re- 
sults of  vice  are  different  to-day  than  they  were  a  genera- 
tion or  more  ago. 

(4)  Education  has  been  alleged  as  a  cause  of  decreasing 
birth  rate  in   the  native  white  American   stock.     This, 
however,  is  true  only  in  a  very  qualified  sense.    While  it 
is  a  fact,  as  collected  statistics  have  shown,  that  if  Har- 
vard and  dther  universities  depended  on  children  of  their 
alumni  for  students  their  attendance  would  actually  de- 
crease in  numbers,  it  is  not   true  that   college  graduates 
have  had  a  lower  birth  rate  than  the  economic  and  social 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  19$ 

classes  to  which  they  belong.  So  far  as  statistics  have 
been  collected,  indeed,  they  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
wealthy  uneducated  are  producing  fewer  children  than  the 
educated  classes  who  associate  with  them.  The  influence 
decreasing  the  birth  rate  among  the  educated  is,  therefore, 
not  education  itself,  but  the  high  standards  of  living  and* 
the  luxury  of  the  classes  with  whom  they  associate. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  higher  education  of  women  seems 
to  be,  down  to  the  present  time,  operating  as  a  distinct 
influence  to  lessen  the  birth  rate  among  the  educated 
classes  for  the  reason  that  apparently  a  majority  of  edu- 
cated women  do  not  marry.  The  higher  education  has 
not  yet  gone  far  enough,  however,  to  give  us  any  definite 
facts  with  which  to  judge  what  the  ultimate  effect  of 
woman's  higher  education  will  be.  If  the  higher  education 
of  woman  is  going  to  lead  to  a  large  per  cent  of  the  best 
and  most  intellectual  women  in  society  leading  lives  of 
celibacy,  then,  of  course,  ultimately  the  higher  education 
of  woman  will  be  disastrous  to  the  race.  But  probably 
the  relative  infrequency  of  marriage  among  women  who 
are  college  graduates  is  a  transitory  phenomenon  due  to 
the  fact  that  neither  women  nor  men  are  as  yet  adjusted 
to  the  higher  education  of  women.  , 

(5)  Some  phases  of  the  "  woman's  movement "  have  i 
without  doubt  tended  to  lessen  the  birth  rate  in  certain 
sections  of  American  society.  Some  of  the  leaders  of  the 
woman's  movement  have  advocated,  for  example,  that 
women  should  choose  a  single  life,  while  others  have  advo- 
cated that  families  should  not  have  more  than  two  children. 
Some  "birth-control"  advocates  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
claim  that  if  families  would  have  but  two  children  this 


196  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

would  be  a  cure-all  for  many  social  troubles.  Indeed,  this 
ideal  of  two  children  in  the  family  has  been  so  widely 
disseminated  in  this  country  that  it  is  often  spoken  of  as 
the  "  American  Idea."  Of  course,  such  teachings  could 
not  be  without  some  effect.  Without  attempting  to  reply 
to  the  advocates  of  this  theory  of  but  two  children  to  a 
family,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  remark  that  for  a  population 
simply  to  remain  stationary  three  children  at  least  must 
be  born  to  each  family  on  the  average;  otherwise,  if  only 
two  children  are  born,  as  one  of  the  children  is  apt  to  die 
or  fail  to  marry,  the  population  will  actually  decrease  in 
numbers.  Under  the  best  modern  conditions  one  out  of 
three  children  now  born  either  fails  to  live  to  maturity  or 
fails  to  reproduce.  There  must  be,  therefore,  more  than 
three  children  born  to  the  average  family  for  a  population 
to  grow.  From  the  sociological  point  of  view  the  ideal 
family  would  seem  to  be  one  in  which  from  three  to  six 
children  are  born. 

•  (6)  Finally,  not  all  of  the  childless  and  small  families 
in  the  native  American  stock  are  due  by  any  means  to  volun- 
tary causes,  or  even  involuntary  causes  of  the  kind  that 
we  have  mentioned.  There  are  also  certain  other  obscure 
r  physiological  causes  at  work  producing  sterility  in  American 
women.  The  sterility  of  American  women  is  greater  than 
that  of  any  other  civilized  population,  even  apart  from  the 
causes  which  have  just  been  mentioned.  Some  say  this  is 
due  to  physical  deterioration  in  the  native  white  American 
stock,  and  there  are  other  things  which  seem  to  point  in 
that  direction.  It  may  be,  however,  that  this  deteriora- 
tion is  in  no  sense  racial,  but  only  individual,  affecting 
certain  individuals  who  lead  a  relatively  unnatural  life. 


THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  197 

Our  American  civilization  puts  a  great  strain  upon  cer- 
tain elements  of  our  population,  and  this  strain  in  many 
cases  falls  even  more  upon  the  women  than  upon  the 
men.  The  social  life  of  the  American  people,  in  other 
words,  is  oftentimes  such  as  to  produce  exhaustion  and 
physical  degeneracy,  and  this  shows  itself  in  the  women  of 
a  population  first  of  all  in  sterility.  It  is  evident  that  the 
remedy  for  this  cause  is  a  more  natural  and  more  simple 
life  on  the  part  of  all,  if  it  is  possible  to  bring  this  about. 
Thus,  the  causes  which  influence  birth  rate  are  evidently 
very  complex.  In  the  main  they  are  doubtless  economic 
causes  among  all  peoples,  but  there  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  these  economic  causes  act  alone  in  determining  birth 
rate,  nor  is  there  any  reason  to  believe  that  the  other 
psychological  and  biological  causes  may  be  in  any  way 
derived  from  the  economic.  So  far  as  we  can  see,  then, 
industrial  conditions  are  mainly  responsible  for  the  lessened 
birth  rate  in  the  native  white  American  stock.  But 
mingled  with  these  industrial  conditions,  operating  as 
causes,  are  certain  psychological  (or  moral)  and  biological 
factors  that  have  to  be  considered  as  in  the  main  inde- 
pendent. It  is  furthermore  evident  that  the  causes  which 
lead  to  the  decline  and  extinction  of  any  population, 
whether  civilized  or  uncivilized,  are  complex.  All  efforts 
to  explain  the  extinction  of  peoples  of  antiquity,  or  modern 
nature  peoples,  such  as  the  North  American  Indians  and 
the  Polynesians,  through  any  single  set  of  causes,  must  be 
looked  at  as  unscientific.  It  can  readily  be  shown  that  in 
all  these  cases  the  causes  of  the  decline  of  the  birth  rate 
and  the  ultimate  extinction  of  the  stock  are  numerous  and 
are  not  reducible  to  any  single  set  of  causes. 


198  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

Causes  which  Influence  the  Death  Rate.  Before  we  can 
fully  understand  the  causes  of  the  growth  of  a  population, 
that  is,  of  the  surplus  of  births  over  deaths,  we  must  under- 
stand something  also  about  the  things  which  influence  the 
death  rate  as  well  as  the  things  which  influence  the  birth 
rate,  because,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  the  growth  of  a 
given  population  (excluding  immigration  always)  is  due  to 
the  combined  working  of  these  two  factors. 

Within  certain  limits  the  death  rate  is  more  easily  con- 
trolled than  the  birth  rate.  It  is  very  difficult  for  society 
deliberately  to  set  about  to  increase  the  birth  rate,  but 
it  is  comparatively  easy  for  it  to  take  deliberate  measures 
to  decrease  the  death  rate,  because  all  individuals  have  a 
selfish  interest  in  decreasing  the  death  rate;  but  the  in- 
crease of  the  birth  rate  does  not  appeal  to  the  self-interest 
of  individuals.  Modern  medical  science,  as  we  have 
seen,  has  done  much  to  decrease  the  death  rate  in 
civilized  countries,  and  it  promises  to  do  even  more. 
A  century  ago  a  death  rate  of  fifty  or  sixty  per  thousand 
population  in  urban  centers  was  not  unusual,  but  now  a 
death  rate  of  thirty  in  a  thousand  in  the  same  communities 
is  considered  an  intolerable  disgrace,  and  the  time  will 
shortly  come,  no  doubt,  when  even  a  death  rate  of  twenty 
per  thousand  of  the  population  will  be  considered  dis- 
graceful to  any  community.  As  we  have  already  seen,  the 
normal  death  rate  of  the  most  enlightened  European  and 
American  communities  tends  to  establish  itself  around 
fifteen  per  thousand. 

Of  course  the  sanitary  and  hygienic  conditions  which 
influence  the  death  rate  are  so  numerous  that  we  cannot 
enter  into  and  discuss  them.  We  can  only  mention 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  199 

some  of  the  more  general  social  causes  which  are  often 
overlooked  and  which  are  of  particular  interest  in 
sociology. 

(1)  The  Great  War  demonstrated  once  more  that  war, 
next  after  famine  and  pestilence,  is  the  greatest  destructive 
agency  known  to  man.    While  previous  recent  European 
wars,  such  as  the  Franco-Prussian  War  of  1870-1871,  had 
comparatively  small  effects  upon  the  death  rates  of  the 
countries  involved,  the  reverse  was  true  of  the  Great  War. 
In  all  the  chief  belligerent  nations  the  death  rate  was 
enormously  increased,  while  the  birth  rate  was  greatly 
decreased.    Thus  France  suffered  a  loss  of  about  seven  per 
cent  of  its  total  population  in  the  years  1914-1918,  losing 
1,385,000  through  death  in  its  military  forces,  and  over 
1,000,000  through  the  excess  of  deaths  over  births  in  its 
civilian  population,   during  the  four  years  of  the  War. 
Germany,  it  is  estimated,  suffered  a  total  loss,  within  its 
geographical  boundaries  of  1914,  of  about  3,500,000  in  its 
population  during  the  four  years  of  the  Great  War,  of  which 
number,  however,  only  1,600,000  was  from  deaths  in  its 
military  forces.    It  is  estimated  that  about  7,500,000  men 
died  in  the  armies  of  the  whole  of  Europe  during  the  War, 
while  almost  as  many  more  were  permanently  disabled  - 
the  total  wounded  being  estimated  at  over  18,000,000.    In 
addition,  perhaps   10,000,000  died  in  Europe  from   the 
diseases  and  starvation  caused  by  the  War.    Thus  we  see 
that  even  in  modern  war  disturbances  in  economic  and  san- 
itary conditions  cause  more  deaths  than  wounds  received 
in  battle. 

(2)  As    already    implied,    then,    economic    conditions 
exercise  a  very  great  influence  upon  death  rate,  particularly 


20C  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

when  economic  conditions  cause  increased  cost  of  the 
necessities  of  life  and  widespread  scarcity  of  food.  This 
cause  produces  far  more  deaths  in  modern  nations  than 
any  other  preventable  cause.  The  doubling  of  the  cost  of 
bread  during  the  Great  War  was  one  of  its  greatest  calam- 
ities. While  in  peace  modern  civilized  peoples  fear  famine 
but  little,  there  are  many  classes  in  the  great  industrial 
nations  that  live  upon  such  a  narrow  margin  of  existence 
that  the  slightest  increase  in  the  cost  of  the  necessities  of 
life  means  practically  the  same  as  a  famine  to  these  classes. 
Statistics,  therefore,  of  all  modern  countries,  and  partic- 
ularly of  all  great  cities,  show  an  enormous  increase  in 
sickness  and  death  among  the  poorer  classes  in  times  of 
economic  depression. 

(3)  Other  economic  causes  also  greatly  affect  the  death 
rate,    especially    industrial    accidents    and    occupational 
diseases.     It  is  estimated  by  reliable  authorities  that  in 
the  United  States  alone  25,000  are  killed  annually  by  in- 
dustrial accidents,   and   700,000  maimed   and  wounded, 
and  that  there  are  as  many  as  3.000,000  cases  of   ill- 
ness in  a  year  produced  by  harmful  industrial  conditions, 
It  is  evident  from  these  figures  that  modern  industry 
is  more  bloody  than  many  a  war,  and  that  in  all  indus- 
trial communities,  unless  there  are  the  most  advanced 
sanitary  and  safety  appliances,  it  must  swell  the  death 
rate  considerably. 

(4)  Climate  and  season  are  rather  constant  factors  in 
the  death  rate  of  all  communities.    The  rule  here  is  that  in 
northern  countries  the  death  rate  is  higher  in  winter,  while 
in  southern  countries  the  death  rate  is  higher  in  summer. 
Taking  100  as  an  arbitrary  standard,  in  Sweden  in  February 


THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  2OI 

deaths  rise  to  113,  in  August  they  go  down  to  79 ;  but  in  the 
United  States  in  1910  in  March  deaths  were  at  in  as  com- 
pared with  the  standard,  and  in  August  at  102,  while  in 
June  and  October  deaths  were  at  92  and  91  respectively,  — 
the  period  of  minimum  death  rate  in  the  United  States 
being  in  the  spring  and  autumn.  In  other  words,  in  months 
of  most  moderate  temperature  the  mortality  is  least. 

(5)  The  biological  fact  of  sex  also  influences  death  rate. 
Males  in  general  are  shorter-lived  than  females.     This  is 
in  part  due  to  the  fact  that  men  are  more  exposed  to  the 
dangers  of  industry  in  earning  a  livelihood,  while  women  are 
more  secluded  in  the  home.     But  this  does  not  explain 
entirely  the  discrepancy  in  the  death  rate  of  the  two  sexes, 
for  boy  babies  die  more  frequently  than  girl  babies.     As 
we  have  already  seen,  the  female  organism  is  the  more 
stable,  biologically,  and  hence  females,  while  having  less 
physical  strength,  have  more  vitality  than  males.     In  the 
registration  area  of  the  United  States  the  death  rate  in 
1910  for  the  males  was  approximately  16  per  thousand  of 
the  male  population,  while  the  death  rate  for  the  females 
was  only  14  per  thousand  of  their  population. 

(6)  Conjugal   condition  is  also  a  factor  which  affects 
death  rate.     The  differences  between  the  death  rates  of  the 
married  and  unmarried  have  long  been  noted.     The  follow- 
ing table  of  the  death  rates  (per  thousand)  of  males  and 
females  of  different  conjugal  classes  between  the  ages  of  forty 
and  fifty  years  (in  Germany,  1876-1880),  taken  from  Profes- 
sor Mayo-Smith's  Statistics  and  Sociology,  illustrates  this : 

Single  males.  .  .  .  26.5  Single  females.  .  .  .  15.4 
Married  males  .  .  14.2  Married  females  .  .  11.4 
Widowed  males  .  29.9  Widows 13.4 


202  THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

It  will  be  seen  from  these  figures  that  in  the  more  advanced 
years  of  life  the  death  rate  among  the  single  is  higher  than 
among  the  married.  The  probable  explanation  of  this, 
however,  is  not  that  the  married  state  is  better  physio- 
logically, as  has  been  so  often  claimed,  but  that  it  is  better 
socially.  These  figures  are  a  testimony,  in  other  words, 
to  the  social  advantages  of  the  home.  Single  persons, 
particularly  in  the  more  advanced  years  of  life,  who  are  with- 
i  out  homes,  are  more  liable  to  fall  sick,  and  when  sick  are  less 
likely  to  receive  proper  care.  That  these  figures  show  the 
great  social  advantage  of  the  home  in  preserving  life  is 
evident  from  the  fact  that  among  the  widowed  males, 
whose  homes  have  been  broken  up,  the  death  rate  is  higher 
even  than  among  the  single  males.  Moreover,  in  inter- 
preting such  statistics  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the  un- 
married in  the  higher  ages  of  life  are  made  up  very  often 
of  those  who  are  relatively  abnormal,  either  physically  or 
mentally,  that  is,  of  those  who  are  biologically  unfit.  In- 
asmuch as  the  single  persons  include  many  of  this  class,  and 
also  lack  the  comforts  of  home,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the 
death  rate  is  much  higher  among  them. 

(7)  Infantile  mortality  is  one  of  the  most  interesting 
phases  of  vital  statistics.  We  have  already  said  that  the 
death  rate  is  a  good  rough  measure  of  a  people's  civili- 
zation. Even  more  can  we  say  that  the  death  rate  among 
children,  particularly  those  under  one  year  of  age,  is  an 
index  to  a  people's  sanitary  and  moral  condition.  Taking 
the  world  as  a  whole,  it  is  still  estimated  that  one  half  of 
all  who  are  born  die  before  the  age  of  five  years.  This 
represents  an  enormous  waste  of  energy.  Even  in  many 
of  the  most  civilized  countries  the  death  rate  among  chil- 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  203 

dren,  and  especially  among  infants  under  one  year  of  age,  is 
still  comparatively  high.  Most  of  this  death  rate  is  unnec- 
essary, could  be  avoided,  and,  as  we  have  already  said, 
represents  a  waste  of  Me.  According  to  Dr.  Newman,1 
during  the  decade  1894-1903,  in  Russia  27  per  cent  of  all 
children  born  died  the  first  year;  in  Germany,  19.5  per  cent; 
in  France,  15.5  per  cent;  in  England,  15  per  cent;  in  Norway, 
9.4  per  cent;  in  New  Zealand,  9.7  per  cent;  and  in  the 
United  States,  about  16  per  cent.  Probably  the  chief  factor 
in  causing  a  high  infant  mortality  is  the  ignorance  of  parents 
as  to  proper  methods  of  child  care;  but  this  is  closely  cor- 
related with  economic  conditions.  The  Federal  Children's 
Bureau  has  shown  that  the  highest  death  rate  of  children 
in  the  United  States  is  generally  in  families  with  very  low 
income,  while  the  lowest  death  rate  was  found  hi  families 
with  an  income  above  $1200  annually.  What  proper 
measures  can  do  to  reduce  infant  mortality  is  shown  by 
recent  statistics.  Thus,  in  ten  leading  states  of  the  regis- 
tration area  in  the  United  States  in  1916  only  10.1  per  cent 
of  the  children  born  died  the  first  year,  while  in  New 
Zealand  hi  1915  the  per  cent  was  only  5.0. 

The  Laws  of  the  Growth  of  Population.  —  Can  the  growth 
of  population  be  reduced  to  any  principle  or  law?  This  is  a 
problem  which  has  puzzled  social  thinkers  for  a  long  tune. 
Many  have  thought  that  the  growth  of  population  can  be 
reduced  to  one  or  more  relatively  simple  laws,  but  we  have 
seen  from  analyzing  the  statistics  of  birth  rate  and  death 
rate  that  this  is  hardly  probable.  A  formula  that  would 
cover  the  growth  of  population  would  have  to  cover  all  of 
the  variable  causes  influencing  birth  rate  and  death  rate 

1  In  his  work  on  Infant  Mortality. 


204  THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

and  so  entering  into  the  surplus  of  births  over  deaths.  It  is 
evident  that  these  causes  are  too  complex  to  be  reduced  to 
any  such  formula  among  modern  civilized  peoples.  In  the 
animal  world  and  among  uncivilized  peoples,  however, 
conditions  are  quite  different,  and  the  growth  of  population 
is  regulated  by  certain  very  simple  principles  or  laws.  Thus 
it  is  probable  that  for  centuries  before  the  whites  came,  the 
Indians  of  North  America  were  stationary  in  their  popula- 
tion, for  the  reason  that  under  their  stationary  condition 
of  culture  a  given  area  could  support  only  so  many  people. 
In  conditions  of  savagery,  and  even  of  barbarism,  therefore, 
we  can  lay  down  the  principle  that  population  will  increase 
up  to  the  limit  of  food  supply,  and  will  stop  there  and  re- 
main stationary  until  food  supply  increases.  This  is  the 
condition  which  governs  the  growth  of  the  population  of  all 
animal  species,  and,  as  we  have  already  said,  of  the  savages 
and  barbarians  among  the  human  species.  But  among 
civilized  men  who  have  attempted  the  control  of  physical 
nature,  and  to  some  extent  even  the  control  of  human 
nature,  many  other  factors  enter  in  to  influence  both  birth 
rate  and  death  rate,  and  so  the  growth  of  the  population. 
Nevertheless,  many  social  thinkers  of  the  past  have  con- 
ceived, as  has  already  been  said,  that  the  growth  of  popula- 
tion might  be  reduced  to  very  simple  and  definite  laws. 
Among  the  first  who  proposed  laws  governing  population 
was  an  English  economist,  Thomas  Robert  Malthus, 
whose  active  career  coincides  with  the  first  quarter  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  In  1798  Malthus  put  forth  a  little 
book  which  he  entitled  An  Essay  on  the  Principle  of  Popu- 
lation as  it  affects  the  future  improvement  of  society.  This 
essay  went  through  numerous  editions  and  revisions,  and 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  205 

in  it  Malthus  elaborated  his  famous  economic  theory  of  the 
growth  of  population.  Inasmuch  as  this  theory  of  Malthus 
has  .been  the  storm  center  of  sociological  and  economic 
writers  for  the  past  one  hundred  years,  it  is  worth  our  while 
to  note  very  briefly  what  Malthus's  theory  was,  and  why 
it  is  inadequate  as  a  scientific  statement  of  the  laws  govern- 
ing the  growth  of  population. 

Malthus's  Theory  of  Population.  In  the  first  edition  of 
his  essay  Malthus  contended  that  population  tends  to 
increase  in  geometric  ratio,  while  food  at  best  will  increase 
only  in  arithmetical  ratio ;  and  that  this  means  that  con- 
stant discrepancies  between  population  and  food  supply 
would  appear,  with  the  result  that  population  would  have 
to  be  cut  down  to  food  supply.  Later  Malthus  saw  how 
crude  this  statement  of  his  theory  was  and  abandoned  any 
attempt  at  mathematical  statement,  presenting  substan- 
tially the  following  theory:  (i)  Population  is  necessarily 
limited  by  food;  (2)  Population  always  increases  where 
food  increases  and  tends  to  increase  faster  than  food; 
(3)  The  checks  that  keep  population  down  to  food  supply 
may  be  classified  as  positive  and  preventive.  Positive 
checks  are  those  which  increase  the  death  rate,  such  as 
famine,  poverty,  war,  disease,  and  the  like.  Preventive 
checks  are  those  that  decrease  the  birth  rate,  such  as  late 
marriage  and  prudence  in  the  birth  of  children.  Inas- 
much as  Malthus  believed  that  the  positive  checks  must 
always  operate  where  the  preventive  checks  did  not,  he 
advocated  the  use  of  the  preventive  checks  as  the  best 
means  to  remedy  human ,  misery.  The  inherent  tendency 
of  population  to  outstrip  food  supply,  Malthus  believed 
to  be  the  main  source  of  human  misery  in  all  of  its  forms. 


206  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

Criticisms  of  MaUhus's  Theory,  (i)  It  is  evident  that 
Malthus's  theory  applies  only  to  a  stationary  society,  that 
is,  a  non-progressive  society,  because  in  a  progressive 
society  human  invention  and,  therefore,  food  supply, 
may  far  outstrip  any  increase  of  population.  This  was 
the  case  in  practically  all  civilized  countries  during  the 
nineteenth  century,  where  improvements  in  machinery 
and  agriculture  greatly  increased  the  food  supply.  If  it 
be  replied  that  this  increase  of  food  is  but  temporary, 
and  that  sooner  or  later  Malthus's  theory  must  operate, 
then  it  may  be  said,  on  the  other  hand,  that  as  yet 
we  see  no  limit  of  man's  mastery  over  nature,  and  that 
apparently  we  are  just  entering  upon  the  stage  of  ma- 
terial progress.  We  have  just  begun  to  conquer  physical 
nature,  and  in  the  United  States  in  particular  scientific 
agriculture  tells  us  not  half  of  the  actual  fertility  of 
the  soil  is  utilized.  Malthus,  of  course,  did  not  fore- 
see the  inventions  and  agricultural  progress  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  For  this  reason  his  theory  was  a  static 
one  and  it  cannot  be  made  to  apply  to  a  progressive 
society. 

(2)  Similarly,  the  theory  makes  no  allowance  for  the 
increased  efficiency  which  may  come  with  increased  popu- 
lation, because  increase  of  population  makes  possible  bet- 
ter cooperation.  As  we  have  already  seen,  cooperation  and 
division  of  labor  in  a  society  depend  upon  the  size  of  the 
group  to  a  certain  extent,  that  is,  the  larger  the  group 
there  is  for  organization  the  better  can  be  the  organization 
and  division  of  labor  in  that  group.  Every  increase  of 
population,  therefore,  opens  up  new  and  superior  ways 
of  applying  labor;  and  cooperation  and  the  division  of 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  207 

labor  make  it  possible  for  men  to  do  more  as  a  group  than 
they  could  possibly  accomplish  working  as  individuals. 
Improved  means  of  cooperation,  therefore,  operate  very 
much  the  same  way  in  human  society  in  controlling  nature 
as  new  inventions. 

(3)  The  theory  of  Malthus  makes  no  allowance  for  the 
general  law  of  animal  fertility,  which  is  that  as  the  rate 
of  individual  evolution  increases  the  rate  of  reproduction 
decreases.     Of   course,    Malthus's   theory   antedates   this 
law  of  animal  fertility,  which  was  first  stated  by  Herbert 
Spencer.     Some  scientists  declare  that  this  law  does  not 
apply  within  the  human  species,  and  it  must  be  admitted 
that  we  are  not  yet  certain  that  it  does.    As  we  have  already 
seen,  however,   the  lower  and  less  individualized  classes 
in  human  society  reproduce  much  more  rapidly  than  the 
upper  or  more  individualized  classes.     Increase  of  food 
supply,  or  of  wealth,  does  not  necessarily  mean  increase  of 
population,  and  the  fatal  error  in  Malthus's  theory  is  that 
he  assumes  that  wherever  food  increases  population  always 
increases  unless  deliberate  checks  are  applied. 

(4)  The  overpopulation  which  Malthus  feared,  so  far 
from  being  an  evil,  has  been  shown  by  the  labors  of  Darwin 
to  be  the  condition  essential  to  the  working  of  the  process 
of  natural  selection  in  the  human  species.     Overpopula- 
tion, at  least  until  artificial  selection  arrives,  is  not  an 
evil,  but  a  good  in  human  society.     Without  it  there  would 
not  be  sufficient  elimination  of  the  unfit  in  human  society 
to    prevent    wholesale    social    degeneration.     Even    with 
artificial  selection,  however,   some  overpopulation  would 
be  necessary  for  the  working  of  any  scheme  of  selection. 
We  must  conclude,  then,  that  Malthus's  theory,  either  as 


208  THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

an  explanation  of  the  growth  of  modern  populations  or  as 
an  implied  practical  ethical  doctrine,  is  of  little  value. 

This  is  not  saying,  of  course,  that  Malthus's  theory  does 
not  have  elements  of  truth  in  it.  Undoubtedly  Malthus's 
theory  does  apply  to  stationary,  non-progressive  peoples, 
to  savages  and  lower  civilized  in  certain  stages  of  culture,  t 
and  also  perhaps  to  certain  classes  in  modern  society  who 
fail  to  participate  in  modern  social  progress.  But  these 
lower  classes  or  elements  in  human  society  are  constantly 
decreasing,  especially  in  America,  where  the  tendency  to 
individual  improvement  is  so  marked.  Again,  Malthus's 
theory  has  certain  elements  of  truth  in  it,  so  far  as  it  de- 
pends upon  the  economic  law  of  diminishing  returns  in  agri- 
culture, and  in  so  far  as  it  merely  asserts  that  the  struggle 
for  existence  in  human  society  is,  in  the  last  analysis,  a 
struggle  for  food.  Finally,  Malthus  meant  his  theory  chiefly 
as  a  criticism  of  socialistic  and  communistic  schemes,  which 
would  equalize  wealth  and  do  away  with  competition  in 
society.  Unquestionably  any  such  scheme  to  equalize 
wealth  and  do  away  with  competition  in  society  would 
result  in  the  enormous  increase  of  the  lower  and  more 
brutal  element  of  society  —  those  that  have  not  yet  par- 
ticipated in  modern  culture.  Malthus's  theory  as  a  criticism 
of  socialistic  schemes  that  would  do  away  with  competition 
(which,  however,  is  not  an  aim  of  genuinely  scientific  social- 
ism) is  unquestionably  as  good  to-day  as  when  it  was 
written. 

Summary  and  Conclusion.  —  Most  modern  economists 
and  sociologists  recognize  the  failure  of  Malthus  to  for- 
mulate a  successful  theory  of  population,  and  therefore, 
some  have  attempted  to  form  theories  independent  of  Mai- 


THE  GROWTH  OF  POPULATION  209 

thus;  but  it  must  be  said  that  they  have  succeeded  no  better 
than  Malthus.  In  its  practical  aspects  also  Malthusianism 
must  be  judged  to  be  an  inadequate  doctrine.  In  practice 
Neo-Malthusian  ideas  have  served  merely  as  an  excuse  for 
the  socially  fortunate  classes  to  restrict  their  birth  rate. 
Modern  eugenics  makes  a  much  closer  approach  to  a  rational 
population  policy.  According  to  eugenics,  society  needs 
birth  release  among  the  strong,  the  intelligent,  and  the 
economically  fortunate,  while  it  needs  birth  restriction 
among  the  weak,  the  unintelligent,  and  the  economically 
depressed.  But  there  are  insuperable  difficulties  at  pres- 
ent in  the  way  of  carrying  out  such  a  program.  It  may 
be  accepted,  however,  as  a  standard  upon  which  to  base  a 
rational  reconstruction  of  our  population  policy;  for  Mal- 
thusianism in  practice  has  worked  the  opposite  and  pro- 
duced a  "reversal  of  selection"  in  society. 

As  to  economic  influences,  they  are,  as  we  have  seen, 
powerful  influences  in  determining  the  growth  of  popu- 
lation, but  they  are  not  the  only  ones.  The  factors  which 
enter  into  detennining  the  excess  of  births  over  deaths  are 
much  too  complex  to  be  lumped  together  and  called  "eco- 
nomic conditions."  So  far  as  the  birth-rate  side  of  the 
population  equation  is  concerned,  it  would  be  more  nearly 
correct  to  say  that  in  a  very  broad  sense  the  problem  is 
psychological. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  say  that  we  are  unable  to  formulate 
any  laws  of  population  which  are  worthy  of  the  name  of 
laws  as  yet,  and  it  seems  probable,  that  while  we  may 
understand  clearly  enough  the  factors  which  enter  into 
the  growth  of  population,  we  shall  never  be  able  to  reduce 
these  factors  to  a  single  formula  or  law.  Social  phenomena, 


210  THE   GROWTH  OF  POPULATION 

we  may  here  note,  are  too  complex  to  be  reduced  to  simple 
formulas  or  laws  as  physical  phenomena  are  reduced. 
Indeed,  it  is  doubtful  whether  laws  exist  among  social 
phenomena  in  the  same  sense  in  which  they  exist  among 
physical  phenomena,  that  is,  as  fixed  relations  among 
variable  forces.  Human  society  has  in  it  another  element 
than  mechanical  causation  or  physical  necessity,  namely, 
the  psychic  factor,  and  this  so  increases  the  complexity 
of  social  phenomena  that  it  is  doubtful  if  we  can  formulate 
any  such  hard  and  fixed  laws  of  social  phenomena  as  of 
physical  phenomena.  This  is  not  saying,  however,  that 
social  phenomena  cannot  be  understood  and  that  there  are 
not  principles  which  are  at  work  with  relative  uniformity 
among  them.  It  is  only  saying  that  the  social  sciences, 
even  in  their  most  biological  or  physical  aspects,  cannot 
be  reduced  to  the  same  exactness  as  the  physical  sciences, 
though  the  knowledge  which  they  offer  may  be  in  practice 
just  as  trustworthy. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

ELLWOOD,  The  Social  Problem,  Chap.  III. 
FATRCHTLD,  Applied  Sociology,  Chap.  XI. 
MANGOLD,  Problems  of  Child  Welfare,  Chaps.  I-III. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

BAILEY,  Modern  Social  Conditions,  Chaps.  III-VI. 

BONAR,  Malthus  and  His  Work. 

KELSEY,  The  Physical  Basis  of  Society,  Chap.  IX. 

MAYO-SMITH,  Statistics  and  Sociology,  Chaps.  IV-VIII. 

NEWSHOLME,  The  Declining  Birth  Rate. 

THOMPSON,  Population:  A  Study  in  Malthusianism. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

IN  new  countries  population  may  increase  by  immigra- 
tion as  well  as  by  the  surplus  of  births  over  deaths.  Immi- 
gration is,  therefore,  a  secondary  means  of  increasing  the 
population  of  a  country,  and  in  new  countries  is  often  of 
great  importance. 

History  and  Causes  of  Migrations.  —  Immigration,  or 
the  migration  of  a  people  into  a  country,  along  with  its 
correlative  emigration,  constitutes  a  most  important 
social  phenomenon.  All  peoples  seem  more  or  less  migra- 
tory in  their  habits.  Man  has  been  a  wanderer  upon  the 
face  of  the  earth  since  the  earliest  times.  According  to 
modern  anthropology  the  human  species  probably  evolved 
in  a  relatively  narrow  area  and  peopled  the  earth  by 
successive  migrations  to  distant  lands.  In  all  ages, 
therefore,  we  find  more  or  less  migratory  movements  of 
populations.  But  the  movements  in  modern  times,  par- 
ticularly in  the  nineteenth  century,  probably  exceed,  in 
the  number  of  individuals  concerned,  any  other  migratory 
movements  of  which  we  have  knowledge  in  history. 
Ancient  migrations  were,  moreover,  somewhat  different 
from  modern  immigration  and  emigration.  Ancient  mi- 
grations were  largely  those  of  peoples  or  tribes,  while  in 
modern  times  migration  is  more  of  an  individual  matter. 
The  Huns,  for  example,  came  into  Europe  as  a  nation, 
but  the  immigration  into  the  United  States  at  the  present 

211 


212  THE   IMMIGRATION   PROBLEM 

time  is  wholly  an  individual  movement.  The  causes  of 
migration  are  more  or  less  universal,  but  corresponding  to 
the  difference  in  ancient  and  modern  migrations  we  find 
the  causes  varying  somewhat  in  ancient  and  modern 
times.  The  causes  of  ancient  migrations  and  the  primary 
causes  of  all  migrations  seem  to  be :  (i)  lack  of  food ; 
(2)  lack  of  territory  for  an  expanding  population ;  (3) 
'war.  In  modern  tunes  we  find  other  causes  operating, 
such  as,  (4)  the  labor  market,  —  men  now  migrate  chiefly 
to  get  better  economic  opportunities;  (5)  government, — 
in  modern  times  the  oppression  of  unjust  governments  has 
often  caused  extensive  migration;  (6)  religion,  —  religious 
persecution  and  intolerance  have  in  modern  times  been 
important  among  the  causes  of  migration. 

Migration  as  a  Factor  in  Social  Evolution.  —  Migration 
as  a  factor  in  social  evolution  has  had  most  important  conse- 
quences in  human  history.  The  process  of  migration  has 
been  a  selective  process  which  has  had  much  to  do  with  the 
creation  of  existing  social  types.  It  is  generally  held,  by 
students  of  social  history,  that  migration  exercises  a  selec- 
tive effect  in  favor  of  the  stronger,  more  energetic,  more 
restless  types  of  people.  Hence  peoples  descended  from 
migrants  are  more  apt  to  show  energy  and  restlessness  in 
their  social  life. 

Another  effect  of  migration  of  the  utmost  social  conse- 
quence has  been  the  intermingling  of  peoples.  This  has 
gone  on  to  such  an  extent  in  the  world's  history  that  ethnolo- 
gists tell  us  that  there  are  no  longer  any  pure  races.  The 
crossing  of  races  has  had  such  profound  social  effects  that  we 
cannot  stop  here  to  discuss  the  matter,  except  to  say  that 
undoubtedly  one  result  has  been  to  add  to  the  variability, 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  213 

and  hence  to  the  plasticity,  of  human  types.  This  in- 
creased variability  resulting  from  the  crossing  of  races,  in  the 
opinion  of  many  writers,  has  favored  social  progress.  This 
seems  to  be  the  case  when  the  crossing  is  between  types  not 
too  far  removed  either  in  biological  constitution  or  in  culture. 

Of  equal  importance  with  these  biological  effects  of  human 
migration,  however,  have  been  the  cultural  effects.  As  a 
result  of  migration  different  peoples  with  different  cultures 
have  been  brought  into  contact  with  one  another.  In 
this  way  peoples  have  come  to  borrow  much  from  one 
another  by  imitating  the  folkways,  customs,  and  institu- 
tions of  one  another.  Thus  the  "  cake  of  custom,"  as  Bage- 
hot  says,  has  been  broken  up.  In  other  words,  social  habits 
have  been  prevented  from  becoming  too  inflexible  by  the 
contact  of  different  peoples.  Civilization  has  thus  been 
very  largely  spread  by  migrations  in  the  past. 

Again,  from  the  union  of  two  dissimilar  cultures,  an 
impetus  usually  results  toward  the  development  of  a  new 
and  higher  type  of  civilization.  This  is,  at  least,  usually 
the  case  when  the  cultures  are  not  too  dissimilar.  Sociolo- 
gists are,  therefore,  generally  agreed  that  the  intermingling 
of  peoples  in  the  past  has  been  a  great  stimulus  to  progress. 
This  would  necessarily  result,  under  normal  conditions, 
from  the  breaking  up  of  tradition  and  custom,  which  we 
have  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  important  consequences  of 
migration. 

Still  other  important  sociological  phenomena  flow  from 
the  intermingling  of  peoples  of  different  traditions  and  of 
different  races.  Here  we  can  see  in  the  clearest  possible 
way  the  importance  in  human  society  of  the  "  consciousness 
of  kind,"  and  of  physical  and  mental  resemblance,  among 


214  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

the  different  elements  which  make  up  a  national  group. 
Here  we  can  also  see  in  connection  with  the  intermingling  of 
peoples  the  important  phenomena  of  social  assimilation 
through  imitation.  Without  discussing  further,  however, 
in  an  abstract  way  these  important  sociological  principles, 
let  us  now  turn  to  the  current  problem  of  immigration  into 
the  United  States ;  for  all  historical  examples  of  the  inter- 
mingling of  peoples  are  relatively  of  little  value  compared 
to  the  actual  phenomena  which  we  find  going  on  in  our  own 
country,  if  it  be  desired  to  make  our  study  of  sociological 
principles  at  all  concrete. 

History  of  Immigration  into  the  United  States.  —  The 
great  economic  opportunities  offered  by  the  settlement 
of  the  vast  territory  of  the  United  States,  together  with  a 
combination  of  causes  in  Europe,  partly  political,  partly 
religious,  and  partly  economic,  have  caused,  during  the 
past  century,  a  flood  of  immigrants  from  practically  all 
European  countries  to  invade  the  United  States,  greater 
in  number  of  individuals  than  any  recorded  migration  in 
history.  Between  1820,  the  first  year  for  which  we  have 
immigration  statistics,  and  1918,  33,058,971  immigrants 
sought  homes,  temporarily  or  permanently,  in  this  country, 
—  over  one  half  of  them  coming  since  1890.  Before 
1820  it  is  improbable  that  immigration  into  the  United 
States  assumed  any  large  proportions.  Even  up  to  1840 
the  number  of  immigrants  was  comparatively  insignificant. 
Thus  in  1839  the  number  was  only  68,000,  and  not  until 
1842  did  the  number  of  immigrants  first  cross  the  100,000 
mark.  Owing  to  the  potato  famine  in  Ireland  in  the  forties, 
however,  and  to  the  unsuccessful  revolution  in  Germany  in 
1848,  the  number  of  immigrants  from  Europe  began  greatly 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  215 

to  increase.  From  1851  to  1860  inclusive  no  less  than 
2,598,000  immigrants  sought  homes  in  this  country.  The 
number  fell  off  greatly  during  the  Civil  War,  and  did  not 
reach  the  same  proportions  again  until  the  seventies.  In 
the  decade,  1881-1890,  the  volume  of  immigration  rose  to 
5,246,000.  The  number  of  immigrants  again  declined 
during  the  nineties,  owing  largely  to  the  financial  depression 
in  the  United  States,  to  3,687,000;  but  during  the  decade 
1901-1910  it  surpassed  all  former  records,  and  amounted 
to  nearly  9,000,000. 

It  is  curious  to  note  how  the  maximum  periods  of  im- 
migration have  hitherto  been  about  ten  or  twenty  years 
apart.  Thus  the  first  noteworthy  maximum  of  427,000, 
in  1854,  was  not  surpassed  again  until  1873,  when  another 
maximum  of  459,000  was  recorded ;  in  1882  another  maxi- 
mum was  reached  of  788,000,  and  in  1903  another  maximum 
of  857,000.  After  1903,  however,  immigration  went  on 
increasing  until  1907.  These  fluctuations  in  immigration 
correspond  to  the  economic  prosperity  of  the  country,  and, 
as  Professor  Commons  has  shown,  are  almost  identical 
with  the  fluctuations  in  foreign  imports.  This  shows  very 
conclusively  the  prevailing  economic  character  of  modern 
migration. 

During  1905,  1906,  and  1907,  indeed,  the  United  States 
received  more  immigrants  than  its  total  population  at  the 
time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  In  1905  the 
number  was  1,027,000;  in  1906,  1,100,000;  in  1907, 
1,285,000.  However,  about  twenty-five  per  cent  must  be 
deducted  from  these  immigration  statistics  in  prosperous 
years  to  allow  for  emigrants  returning  to  their  home  coun- 
tries. In  years  of  economic  depression  and  public  calamity, 


216  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

a  much  greater  deduction  must  be  made.  During  the  four 
years  of  the  Great  War,  the  emigration  from  the  United 
States  almost  equalled  the  immigration.1 

Previous  to  1890,  nearly  all  the  immigrants  who  entered 
came  from  the  countries  of  Northern  Europe.  It  has 
been  claimed  that  as  high  as  ninety  per  cent  came  from 
Teutonic  and  Celtic  countries,  and  were,  accordingly, 
almost  of  the  same  blood  as  the  early  settlers;  but  since 
1890  the  character  of  our  immigration  has  changed,  so  that 
since  that  time  nearly  seventy  per  cent  have  come  from 
non-Teutonic  countries,  such  as  Russia,  Austria-Hungary, 
Italy,  and  Greece.  The  period  of  maximum  immigration 
for  the  Irish  to  this  country  was  the  forties  and  fifties;  the 
period  of  maximum  immigration  for  the  Germans  was  the 
fifties  and  eighties;  and  for  the  English,  the  seventies  and 
eighties.  But  the  period  of  maximum  immigration  for  the 
Italians  can  scarcely  as  yet  be  reckoned  by  decades  at  all. 
The  Italians  first  began  coming  in  numbers  exceeding 
100,000  only  in  1900,  but  in  1907,  285,000  of  our  immigrants 
were  Italians,  and  in  1914,  283,000.  These  numbers  are 
larger  than  those  of  the  immigrants  from  any  other  single 
European  nation  in  a  single  year,  unless  we  count  as  one 
nation  the  immigrants  of  various  nationalities  sent  to  us  by 
Austria-Hungary  or  by  Russia.  The  immigration  from 
Austria-Hungary,  also,  did  not  exceed  100,000  until  the 
year  1900,  but  by  1905  it  had  reached  275,000,  and  in  1907, 
338,000.  The  immigration  from  Russia,  consisting  largely 

1  The  number  of  immigrant  aliens,  according  to  the  reports  of  the  Com- 
missioner of  Immigration,  admitted  to  the  United  States  in  the  decade 
1905-14  was  10,122,000,  an  average  of  1,012,000  a  year.  In  1914  it  was 
1,218,480.  In  this  chapter  the  year  1907,  the  year  of  maximum  immigra- 
tion thus  far,  is  taken  as  typical  for  purposes  of  discussion. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  217 

of  Russian  Jews  and  Poles,  began  to  be  considerable,  if 
we  include  Poland  in  Russia,  by  1892,  when  it  reached 
122,000.  In  1903,  after  falling  off,  it  reached  136,000;  in 
1907,  258,000;  and  in  1913,  291,000. 

The  "  Old  "  and  the  "  New  "  Immigration.  These  statis- 
tics have  been  cited  to  show  the  change  in  the  sources  from 
which  we  are  receiving  immigrants.  This  can  be  brought 
out  still  more  clearly  by  contrasting  a  typical  year  previous 
to  1890  with  one  of  the  latest  years.  The  year  1882  was  the 
year,  previous  to  1890,  of  maximum  immigration  into  this 
country.  During  that  year  we  received  788,000  immi- 
grants. Nearly  all,  as  the  table  which  we  are  about  to  give 
will  show,  came  from  countries  of  Northern  Europe.  In 
order  to  contrast  the  "old"  immigration  of  a  quarter  of  a 
century  ago  with  the  "new"  immigration,  let  us  compare 
the  year  1882  with  the  year  1907,  which  thus  far  has  been 
the  year  of  maximum  immigration  into  the  United  States,  — 
the  total  number  of  immigrants  for  1907  being  1,285,000: 

IMMIGRATION,  1882 

Per  cent. 

Great  Britain  and  Ireland 179,423  22.8 

Germany 250,630  31.7 

Scandinavia 105,326  13.3 

Netherlands,  France,  Switzerland,  etc 27,795  3.5 

Total  Western  Europe 71.3 

Italy 32,159  4-i 

Austria-Hungary 29,150  3.7 

Russia,  etc 22,010  2.7 


Total  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  10.5 

All  other  countries l. .  18.2 


'Of  the  immigration  from  "other  countries"  98,295  was  from  British 
North  America,  or  12.4  per  cent  of  the  total.  This,  added  to  the  71.3  per 
cent  from  Western  Europe,  makes  a  total  of  83.7  of  the  immigrants  in 
1882  of  West  European  stock. 


2i8  THE  IMMIGRATION   PROBLEM 

IMMIGRATION,  1907 

Per  cent. 

Great  Britain  and  Ireland 113,567  8.8 

Scandinavia 49,965  3.9 

Germany 37,807  2.9 

Netherlands,  France,  Switzerland,  etc 26,512  2.1 

Total  Western  Europe 17.7 

Austria-Hungary 338,452  26.3 

Italy 285,731  22.2 

Russia 258,943  20.1 

Greece,  Servia,  Roumania,  etc 88,482  6.9 

Total  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe. .  75.5 
All  other  countries .  .  6.8 


It  will  be  noted  that  while  in  1882,  71.3  per  cent  of  our 
immigrants  came  from  the  countries  of  Western  Europe, 
only  10.5  per  cent  came  from  the  countries  of  Southern 
and  Eastern  Europe.  In  1907  the  situation  was  very 
nearly  reversed.  In  1907  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and 
Scandinavia,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  Belgium,  France, 
and  Switzerland  —  the  countries  which  had  furnished  71.3 
per  cent  of  our  immigrants  in  1882  —  furnished  only  17.7 
per  cent,  while  Austria-Hungary,  Italy,  Russia,  Greece, 
Servia,  Roumania,  and  Turkey  in  Europe  —  the  countries 
which  had  furnished  but  10.5  per  cent  in  1882  —  furnished 
7 5. 5  per  cent.  This  matter  of  changed  sources  from  which 
we  receive  our  immigrants  evidently  is  one  of  first  impor- 
tance in  any  consideration  of  the  present  immigration  prob- 
lem of  the  United  States. 

The  Distribution  of  Immigrants.  If  immigrants  would 
distribute  themselves  evenly  over  the  United  States,  the 
immigration  problem  would  be  quite  different  from  what 
it  is.  Instead  of  this,  there  is  a  massing  of  immigrants  in 
some  states  and  communities,  and  very  little  evidence  to 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  219 

show  that  these  immigrants  ever  distribute  themselves 
normally  over  the  whole  country.  In  1907,  for  example, 
the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  reported  that  65  per  cent 
of  the  1,285,000  immigrants  who  came  that  year  went  to 
the  North  Atlantic  states ;  23  per  cent  to  the  North  Central 
states ;  6  per  cent  to  the  Western  states ;  and  4.5  per  cent 
to  the  Southern  states.  If  these  figures  are  at  all  trust- 
worthy, they  indicate  a  congestion  of  our  recent  immi- 
grants in  the  North  Atlantic  states  and  in  certain  states  of 
the  Central  West.  The  census  tends  to  confirm  these 
statistics  of  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration.  Accord- 
ing to  the  census  of  1910  the  number  of  foreign-born  whites 
in  the  United  States  was  13,345,000,  or  14.5  per  cent  of  the 
total  population.  But  these  foreign  born  were  confined 
almost  entirely  to  the  Northern  states ;  that  is,  the  North 
Atlantic  states  and  North  Central  states.  In  1910  the 
Southern  states  (South  Atlantic  and  South  Central)  con- 
tained but  5.4  per  cent  of  the  total  foreign  born  of  the  coun- 
try. The  reason  why  so  few  of  our  immigrants  have  thus 
far  settled  in  the  South  is  perhaps  chiefly  because  of  the 
competition  which  the  cheap  negro  labor  of  the  South  would 
offer  to  them,  and  also  because  the  South  is  still  largely 
agricultural,  offering  few  opportunities  for  the  industrial 
employments,  into  which  a  majority  of  our  immigrants  go. 
In  1910  over  one  fourth  of  the  population  in  the  North 
Atlantic  states  was  foreign  born,  and  20.5  per  cent  in  the 
Pacific  Coast  states.  The  following  statistics  will  show 
the  percentage  of  the  white  foreign  born  in  typical  states : 
Rhode  Island,  32.8  per  cent ;  Massachusetts,  31.2  per  cent ; 
New  York,  29.9  per  cent ;  Connecticut,  29.5  per  cent ;  North 
Dakota,  27.1  per  cent;  Minnesota,  26.2  per  cent;  New 


220  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

Jersey,  25.9  per  cent;  Wisconsin,  22  per  cent;  California, 
21.8  per  cent;  Illinois,  21.3  per  cent;  Maryland,  8  per 
cent;  Missouri,  7  per  cent;  Indiana,  5.9  per  cent;  Missis- 
sippi, 0.5  per  cent;  and  North  Carolina,  0.3  per  cent. 
The  influence  of  the  foreign  born  in  a  community,  how- 
ever, is  better  shown,  perhaps,  if  we  consider  the  number 
of  those  of  foreign  parentage,  that  is,  the  foreign  born  and 
their  children,  than  if  we  consider  the  number  of  foreign 
born  alone.  In  a  large  number  of  states  more  than  one 
half  of  the  population  is  of  foreign  parentage.  Thus,  in  1 9 1 o, 
in  Minnesota,  71.5  per  cent  of  the  population  was  of  foreign 
parentage;  North  Dakota,  70.6  per  cent;  Rhode  Island, 
68.7  per  cent;  Wisconsin,  66.8  per  cent;  Massachusetts, 
66  per  cent;  Connecticut,  63.1  per  cent;  New  York,  63 
per  cent;  New  Jersey,  56.6  per  cent;  Michigan,  55.5  per 
cent;  Illinois,  51.9  per  cent.  In  Montana,  Utah,  and  Cal- 
ifornia also  more  than  one  half  of  the  population  was  of 
foreign  parentage  in  1910.  For  the  United  States  as  a 
whole  the  number  of  foreign  parentage  in  1910  amounted 
to  35  per  cent,  or  32,243,000  out  of  a  total  population 
of  92,000,000.  Many  of  our  large  cities  also  have  a  high 
percentage  of  foreign  born  and  of  foreign  parentage  in  their 
population.  The  percentage  of  foreign  born  in  some  of 
our  largest  cities  in  1910  was  as  follows : 

Per  cent. 

New  York 4<M 

Chicago 35-7 

Philadelphia 24.7 

St.  Louis 18.3 

Boston 35-9 

Cleveland 34-9 

Baltimore 13.8 

Pittsburgh 26.3 

Detroit 33-6 

San  Francisco 31.4 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  221 

The  same  cities  had  the  following  percentage  of  foreign 

parentage  in  their  population: 

Per  cent. 

New  York 78.6 

Chicago 77.5 

Philadelphia 56.8 

St.  Louis 54.2 

Boston 74.2 

Cleveland 74.8 

Baltimore 37.9 

Pittsburgh 62.2 

Detroit 74.0 

San  Francisco 68.3 

These  figures  show  the  tendency  of  our  immigrants  to 
mass  together  in  certain  states  and  also  in  our  great  cities. 
Three  fourths  of  our  foreign-born  live  in  cities.  The  census 
of  1910  showed  that  only  19  per  cent  of  the  people  of  New 
York  City  were  of  native  white  stock,  while  of  the  foreign 
white  stock  861,980  were  Jewish,  841,889  German,  and 
549,444  Italian. 

Only  one  nationality  distributes  itself  relatively  evenly 
over  the  country,  and  that  is  the  British.  All  other  nation- 
alities have  certain  favorite  sections  in  which  they  settle. 
Thus,  the  Irish  settle  mainly  in  the  North  Atlantic  states ; 
the  Germans  have  two  favorite  settlements  in  the  United 
States,  one  of  them  consisting  of  New  York  and  Penn- 
sylvania, and  the  other  of  Wisconsin  and  Illinois,  though 
Michigan,  Iowa,  and  Missouri  also  contain  a  large  number 
of  Germans.  The  Scandinavians  locate  chiefly  in  the  North- 
west, especially  in  Minnesota,  North  Dakota,  and  South 
Dakota ;  and  the  large  number  of  foreign  parentage  in 
those  states  is  due  to  Scandinavian  immigration.  All 
these  nationalities,  however,  readily  assimilate  with  our 
population,  as  they  have  very  largely  the  same  social  and 
political  standards  and  ideals.  But  this  is  not  true  re- 


222  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

garding  some  of  the  more  recent  immigrants  from  Southern 
and  Eastern  Europe,  whose  massing  in  large  communities 
of  their  own  must  be  regarded  as  complicating  greatly  the 
problem  of  assimilation.  The  United  States  census  of 
1910  shows  that  out  of  1,343,000  persons  born  in  Italy 
997,000,  or  three  fourths,  were  located  in  New  York, 
Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut, 
and  Illinois ;  that  out  of  1,670,000  persons  born  in  Austria- 
Hungary  1,220,000,  or  three  fourths,  were  located  in  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  New  Jersey,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  Mas- 
sachusetts; that  out  of  1,602,000  persons  born  in  Russia, 
1,260,000,  or  over  three  fourths,  were  residents  of  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  and  Illi- 
nois. These  statistics  accord  well  with  the  statistics  of  des- 
tination kept  by  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration.  They 
show  the  following  results  for  the  typical  year  1907 :  Of 
the  294,000  Italian-speaking  immigrants  who  came  to  us  in 
that  year,  120,000  settled  in  the  state  of  New  York ;  53,000 
in  Pennsylvania;  19,000  in  Massachusetts;  and  17,000 
in  New  Jersey.  Of  the  138,000  Poles  who  came  in  1907, 
33,000  were  bound  to  Pennsylvania,  31,000  to  New  York, 
12,000  to  New  Jersey,  and  17,000  to  Illinois.  These  four 
states  seem  to  constitute  the  favorite  places  of  settlement 
for  the  Slavs.  Of  the  149,000  Hebrews  who  came  in  1907, 
93,000  settled  in  New  York  state,  15,000  in  Pennsylvania, 
and  9000  in  Massachusetts,  these  three  states  being  the 
favorite  places  of  settlement  for  recent  Jewish  immigrants. 
It  seems  clear  from  these  figures  that  the  congestion  of 
recent  immigrants  is  serious,  and  it  is  a  question  whether 
with  such  congestion  it  will  be  possible  to  assimilate  these 
recent  comers,  so  unlike  ourselves  in  social  traditions  and 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  223 

ideals,  to  the  American  type.  It  is  claimed  by  some  that 
there  is  no  serious  congestion  of  immigrants  in  this  coun- 
try, and  that  the  immigrants  distribute  themselves  through 
the  operation  of  normal  economic  influences  in  the  places 
where  they  are  most  needed,  and  that  we  need  not,  there- 
fore, be  concerned  about  the  congestion  of  foreign  born  in 
certain  communities.  This  view,  however,  that  economic 
laws  or  forces  will  sufficiently  attend  to  this  matter  of  the 
distribution  of  our  immigrants,  is  not  borne  out  by  the  facts 
of  ordinary  observation  and  experience. 

The  Distribution  of  Immigrants  in  Industry.  It  is 
probably  safe  to  say  that  four  fifths  of  our  recent  immi- 
grants belong  to  the  unskilled  class  of  laborers,  though  the 
percentage  of  unskilled  fluctuates  greatly  from  year  to 
year  and  from  nationality  to  nationality.  Out  of  the  total 
of  1,285,000  immigrants  in  1907  only  12,600  were  recorded 
by  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  as  belonging  to  the 
professional  classes;  190,000,  or  about  15  per  cent,  were 
skilled  laborers,  including  all  who  had  any  trade;  while 
760,000  were  unskilled  laborers,  including  farm  and  day 
laborers ;  and  304,000  were  persons  of  no  occupation,  includ- 
ing women  and  children.  When  we  consider  the  matter  by 
races,  the  contrast  is  even  more  striking.  Of  the  242,000 
South  Italian  immigrants  in  1907  only  701  were  profes- 
sional men;  26,000,  or  n  per  cent,  were  skilled  laborers; 
while  the  number  of  unskilled  amounted  to  161,000,  or 
66  per  cent.  Of  the  138,000  Poles  who  came  in  1907, 
only  273  were  professional  men ;  8000,  or  6  per  cent,  were 
skilled  laborers ;  and  107,000,  or  77  per  cent,  were  unskilled. 
In  the  case  of  the  Hebrews,  however,  there  is  a  much  higher 
percentage  of  skilled  laborers  and  professional  men.  It  is 


224  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

claimed  by  those  who  favor  the  policy  of  unrestricted  immi- 
gration that  what  this  country  needs  at  present  is  a  large 
supply  of  unskilled  laborers,  and  so  the  fact  that  the  mass 
of  immigrants  belong  to  the  unskilled  class  of  laborers,  it  is 
said,  is  no  objection  to  them. 

The  census  of  1910  showed  a  very  uneven  distribution  of 
the  foreign  born  among  the  different  classes  of  occupations. 
Thus,  while  the  foreign  born  constituted  about  one  seventh 
of  the  population,  over  one  third  of  those  engaged  in  manu- 
facturing were  foreign  born;  one  half  of  those  engaged  in 
mining  were  foreign  born;  one. fourth  of  those  engaged  in 
transportation  were  foreign  born;  one  fourth  of  those 
engaged  in  domestic  service  were  also  foreign  born,  while 
only  one  tenth  of  those  engaged  in  agriculture  were  foreign 
born.  Two  government  commissions  have  shown  that  the 
foreign  born  form  about  one  half  of  the  labor  force  in  our 
basic  industries.  It  is  in  these  industries  that  there  is  the 
greatest  demand  for  cheap  labor,  and  the  presence  of  a 
large  number  of  unskilled  foreign  laborers  has  made  it 
possible  for  the  American  capitalists  to  develop  these  in- 
dustries under  such  conditions  probably  faster  than  they 
would  otherwise  have  been  developed.  At  the  same  time, 
however,  all  of  this  has  been  a  hardship  to  the  native-born 
American  laborer,  as  the  tendency  has  been  to  eliminate 
the  native  born  from  these  occupations  to  which  the 
immigrants  have  flocked. 

Some  Other  Social  Effects  of  Immigration.  —  (i)  The  in- 
fluence of  immigration  on  the  proportion  of  the  sexes  in 
this  country  has  without  doubt  been  considerable.  In 
1907,  out  of  a  total  of  1,285,349  immigrants,  929,976  were 
males  and  355,373  were  females.  For  a  long  period  of 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 


225 


years  about  two  thirds  of  all  the  immigrants  into  the 
United  States  have  been  males.  This  has  greatly  affected 
the  proportion  of  the  sexes  in  the  United  States,  making 
the  males  about  2,700,000  in  excess  in  our  population. 
The  influence  of  such  a  discrepancy  in  the  proportion  of  the 
sexes  is  difficult  to  state,  but  it  is  obvious,  from  all  that 
has  previously  been  said  about  the  importance  of  the 
numerical  equality  of  the  sexes  in  society,  that  the  influence 
must  be  a  considerable  one,  and  that  not  for  good. 

(2)  The  following  table  shows  how  far  the  increase  of  pop- 
ulation in  the  United  States  in  the  decennial  periods  since 
1800  has  been  due  to  immigration  and  to  reproduction.1 
Until  1840  the  increase  by  immigration  was  so  small  as  to  be 
hardly  noticeable,  and  therefore  no  account  of  it  is  taken. 


Year. 

Total  Increase. 
Per  cent. 

By  Immigration. 
Per  cent. 

By  Birth. 
Per  cent. 

1800 

35-70 

1810 

36-38 

1820 

34-0? 

1830 

33-55 

1840 

32.67 

4.66 

28.01 

1850 

35.87 

10.04 

25-83 

1860 

35-58 

II.  12 

24.46 

1870 

22.63 

7-25 

I5-38 

1880 

30.08 

7.29 

22.79 

1890 

25-50 

10.46 

15.04 

1900 

20.73 

5-86 

14.87 

1910 

2I.O2 

"•57 

9-45 

1  This  oft-cited  table  must  not  be  taken  as  an  accurate  statement  of  facts, 
since  it  makes  no  allowance  for  the  return  of  immigrants  or  their  death  be- 
fore the  census  year.  Thus,  in  the  decade  ending  1910  the  actual  increase 
of  the  population  of  the  United  States  by  birth  was  about  15  per  cent  in- 
stead of  9.45.  The  table  does,  however,  roughly  show  the  decline  of  the 
birth  rate  with  increasing  immigration. 


226  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

This  table  shows  that  it  is  not  certain  that  immigration 
has  increased  the  total  population  of  the  United  States, 
as  a  decrease  of  the  natural  birth  rate  seems  to  have  accom- 
panied increasing  immigration.  For  this  reason  Professor 
Francis  A.  Walker  held  that  it  was  doubtful  that  immi- 
gration had  added  anything  to  the  population  of  the  United 
States.  At  any  rate,  the  population  of  the  country  was 
increasing  just  as  rapidly  before  the  large  volume  of  immi- 
gration was  received  as  it  increased  at  any  later  time. 
Again,  the  Southern  states,  which  have  received  practically 
no  immigrants  since  the  Civil  War,  have  increased  their 
population  as  rapidly  as  the  Northern  states,  that  is,  the 
increase  of  population  among  the  Southern  whites  has  been 
equal  to  that  of  the  Northern  assisted  by  immigration. 
These  two  facts  suggest  that  the  immigrants  have  simply 
displaced  an  equal  number  of  native  born  who  would  have 
been  furnished  by  birth  rate  if  the  immigrants  had  never 
come. 

(3)  Immigration  has  very  largely  aided  in  maintaining 
a  considerable  amount  of  illiteracy  in  the  United  States 
in  spite  of  the  effects  of  the  propaganda  for  popular  edu- 
cation which  has  been  carried  on  now  for  the  last  fifty 
years  or  more.  In  1910  there  were  still  5,516,000  illiterates 
above  the  age  of  ten  years  in  the  United  States,  which  was 
7.7  per  cent  of  the  population  above  that  age.  Of  these, 
1,535,000  were  native  whites,  while  1,650,000  were  foreign- 
born  whites.  Nearly  all  of  the  native  white  illiterates  in 
the  United  States  are  found  in  the  Southern  states,  the  white 
illiteracy  in  the  Northern  states  being  practically  confined 
to  the  foreign  born.  Thus,  in  the  state  of  New  York  5.5 
per  cent  are  illiterate,  but  of  the  native  whites  only  0.7  per 


THE  IMMIGRATION   PROBLEM  227 

cent  are  illiterate,  while  13.7  per  cent  of  the  foreign  popula- 
tion can  neither  read  nor  write.  Again,  in  Massachusetts 
5.2  per  cent  of  the  population  are  illiterate,  but  of  the  native 
whites  only  0.5  per  cent  are  illiterate,  while  12.7  per  cent  of 
the  foreign  born  are  illiterate.  Statistics  of  illiteracy  for 
our  cities  show  the  same  results.  Thus,  in  the  city  of  New 
York  6.7  per  cent  of  the  population  are  illiterate,  but  only 
0.3  per  cent  of  the  native  whites  are  illiterate,  while  13.2 
per  cent  of  the  foreign  born  are  illiterate.  In  Boston  4.4 
per  cent  of  the  total  population  are  illiterate,  but  only  o.i 
per  cent  of  the  native  white  population  are  illiterate,  while 
10  per  cent  of  the  foreign-born  population  are  illiterate.  Of 
the  total  immigration  in  1907,  30  per  cent  were  illiterate. 
The  number  of  illiterates  from  different  countries  varies 
greatly. 

It  is  interesting  to  contrast  the  "new"  immigration 
from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  with  the  "old"  immi- 
gration from  Northern  and  Western  Europe.  In  1907, 
the  illiterates  among  the  Southern  Italian  immigrants 
numbered  53  per  cent;  among  the  Ruthenians,  56  per  cent; 
among  the  Poles,  40  per  cent;  among  the  Syrians,  54  per 
cent;  among  the  Russian  Jews,  29  per  cent.  On  the  other 
hand,  among  German  immigrants  illiterates  numbered  only  , 
4  per  cent;  among  Irish,  3  per  cent;  English,  2  per  cent; 
and  Scandinavians,  i  per  cent.  Illiteracy  is  not  only  a 
serious  social  and  economic  handicap  for  the  immigrant; 
it  prevents  his  social  assimilation.  It  makes  it  much  more 
difficult  for  the  immigrant  to  learn  English,  and  so  pre- 
vents his  Americanization.  Closely  connected  with  illit- 
eracy, therefore,  is  the  number  in  our  population  who  can- 
not speak  English.  In  1910  the  number  of  persons  in  the 


228  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

United  States  above  the  age  of  ten  years  who  could  not 
speak  English  was  reported  by  the  census  to  be  3,091,000, 
but  it  is  probable,  owing  to  the  large  immigration  down  to 
the  year  1914,  that  the  number  was  considerably  larger  at 
that  time. 

(4)  Crime  and  Poverty.  It  is  said  that  crime  is  apt  to 
accompany  migration.  However,  down  to  1910  our  immi- 
grants have  not  shown  any  exaggerated  tendency  to  crime. 
The  special  prison  census  of  1910  showed  that  26.2  per  cent 
of  the  male  white  prisoners  were  foreign  born,  while  24.5 
per  cent  of  the  general  male  white  population  above  the 
age  of  fifteen  years  were  foreign  born.  This  shows  a 
tendency  to  crime  among  the  foreign  born  not  greatly  out 
of  proportion  to  their  numbers  in  the  population.  The 
same  census,  however,  showed  that  33.8  per  cent  of  na- 
tive white  prisoners  committed  during  1910  were  born 
of  foreign  parents,  while  this  element  constituted  only 
27.6  per  cent  of  the  native  white  population.  Thus,  among 
the  children  of  the  foreign  born  there  appears  to  be  a 
greater  tendency  toward  crime  than  among  the  foreign 
born  themselves.  The  probable  explanation  of  this  is  that 
the  children  of  the  foreign  born  are  often  reared  in  our 
large  cities,  and  particularly  in  the  slum  districts  of  those 
cities.  Thus  the  high  criminality  of  the  children  of  the 
foreign  born  is  perhaps  largely  a  product  of  urban  life, 
but  it  may  be  suggested  also  that  the  children  of  the 
foreign  bom  lack  adequate  parental  control  in  their  new 
American  environment.  Certain  nationalities  among 
our  immigrants,  however,  seem  strongly  predisposed  to 
crime.  This  is  especially  true  of  the  Southern  Italian. 
For  example,  the  census  of  1910  showed  that  36.5  per  cent 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  229 

of  the  foreign-born  prisoners  committed  for  homicide 
during  1910  were  Italians,  whereas  in  1900  Italians  con- 
stituted only  9.9  per  cent  of  the  total  foreign-born  popula- 
tion. Again,  in  New  York  City  in  1907-1908  the  Italian 
born  constituted  26.9  per  cent  of  those  convicted  of  crimes  of 
personal  violence,  while  they  constituted  but  slightly  over 
7  per  cent  of  the  entire  population  of  the  city  in  1910. 

In  the  matter  of  poverty  and  dependence  the  foreign 
born  make  a  more  unfavorable  showing.  In  the  special 
census  report  on  paupers  for  1904  the  proportion  of  foreign 
born  among  almshouse  paupers  was  about  twice  as  great 
as  among  the  native  born.  Again,  in  a  special  investigation 
conducted  by  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  in  the  year 
1907-1908,  out  of  288,395  inmates  of  charitable  institutions 
there  were  60,025  who  were  foreign  born,  or  about  21  per 
cent,  and  out  of  172,185  inmates  of  insane  hospitals,  50,734, 
or  about  29  per  cent,  were  foreign  born.  Inasmuch  as  the 
foreign  born  did  not  constitute  in  1907-1908  more  than 
15  per  cent  of  the  total  population  of  both  sexes,  it  is  seen 
that  the  foreign  born  contribute  out  of  their  proportion 
both  to  inmates  of  charitable  institutions  and  to  the  num- 
ber of  the  insane.  The  experience  of  Charity  Organization 
Societies  in  many  of  our  large  cities,  on  the  whole,  confirms 
these  findings.1  It  is  not  surprising,  indeed,  that  many 
of  our  immigrants  should  soon  need  at  least  temporary 
assistance  after  landing  in  this  country,  inasmuch  as  a  very 
large  proportion  of  them  come  to  the  United  States  bringing 
little  or  no  money  with  them.  Thus,  for  a  number  of  years 

1  For  further  evidence  on  this  point,  see  Professor  Fairchild's  recent  work 
on  Immigration,  pp.  311-327 ;  also  the  reports  of  the  Immigration  Commis- 
sion. 


230  THE   IMMIGRATION   PROBLEM 

the  amount  of  money  brought  by  immigrants  from  Russia 
varied  from  nine  to  fifteen  dollars  per  head.  On  account 
of  the  difficulties  of  economic  adjustment  in  a  new  country 
it  is  not  surprising,  then,  that  many  of  the  immigrants  be- 
come more  or  less  dependent,  some  temporarily  and  some 
permanently. 

Immigration  into  Other  Countries.  —  It  has  been  sug- 
gested that  with  the  opening  up  of  other  new  countries 
the  immigration  problem  of  the  United  States  would 
solve  itself,  and  that  so  many  emigrants  from  Europe 
will  soon  be  going  to  South  America,  South  Africa,  and 
Australia  that  this  country  will  be  in  no  danger  of  receiving 
more  than  its  share.  Down  to  recent  years,  however, 
there  have  been  little  or  no  signs  of  such  a  diversion  of  the 
stream  of  immigration  from  Europe  into  those  countries. 
The  principal  countries  which  receive  immigrants,  other 
than  the  United  States,  are  Brazil,  Argentina,  Canada, 
and  Australia.  While  Brazil  has  received  between  1820 
and  1915  a  total  of  3,363,000  immigrants,  the  present 
number  of  immigrants  into  Brazil  seems  to  be  compara- 
tively small;  in  1913  it  was  only  192,684.  Argentina,  next 
to  the  United  States,  receives  the  most  considerable  im- 
migration from  Europe.  From  1857  to  1915  Argentina 
received  4,709,000  immigrants.  In  1913  the  number  was 
302,000,  of  whom  over  60  per  cent  were  from  Italy  and 
Spain.  The  foreign  immigration  into  other  South  American 
countries  is  comparatively  insignificant.  In  1913  Australia 
received  141,000  immigrants,  most  of  whom  were  British, 
but  the  emigration  from  Australia  almost  equaled  the  immi- 
gration into  Australia  in  that  year.  Again,  in  1914  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  received  348,000  immigrants,  almost 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  231 

wholly  from  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.    An 
unknown  number,  however,  of  Canadians  migrate  across 
the  border  into  the  United  States,  —  no  record  being  kept 
of  Canadian  immigration  into  the  United  States  since  1885, 
except  of  those  who  come  by  way  of  seaports.    Thus  it  is 
certain  that  the  United  States  received  more  immigration, 
prior  to  the  War,  than  all  the  other  countries  of  the  world 
combined,  and,  as  we  have  said,  there  is  as  yet  little  or  no 
evidence  that  the  stream  of  European  emigration  will  be 
diverted  for  some  years  to  come  to  these  other  countries. 
The  problem  of  immigration  in  the  United  States  is  not, 
therefore,  a  problem  of  the  past,  but  is  still  a  problem  of  the 
future.    Therefore,  the  question  of  reasonable  restrictions 
upon  immigration  into  this  country  and  of  the  assimilation 
of  the  immigrants  that  we  admit  is  still  a  pressing  problem 
in  our  national  life. 

Arguments  for  the  Restriction  of  Immigration.  —  There 
are  no  good  moral  or  political  grounds  to  exclude  all  immi- 
grants from  this  country.  The  question  is  not  one  of  the 
prohibition  of  immigration,  but  one  of  reasonable  restric- 
tions upon  immigration,  or,  as  Professor  Commons  has  said, 
of  the  improvement  of  our  immigration. 

There  can  be  no  question  as  to  the  moral  right  of  the 
United  States  to  restrict  immigration.  If  it  is  our  duty  to 
develop  our  institutions  and  our  national  life  in  such  a  way 
that  they  will  make  the  largest  possible  contribution  to 
the  good  of  humanity,  then  it  is  manifestly  our  duty  to 
exclude  from  membership  in  American  society  elements 
which  might  prevent  our  institutions  from  reaching  their 
highest  and  best  development.  All  restrictions  to  immi- 
gration, it  must  be  admitted,  must  be  based,  not  upon 


232  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

national  selfishness,  but  upon  the  principle  of  the  good 
of  humanity ;  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  good  of 
humanity  demands  that  every  nation  protect  its  people 
and  its  institutions  from  elements  which  may  seriously 
threaten  their  stability  and  survival.  The  arguments  in 
favor  of  further  restrictions  upon  the  immigration  into 
this  country  may  be  summed  up  along  four  lines : 

(i)  The  Industrial  Argument.  Many  of  the  immigrants 
work  for  low  wages,  and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  offer 
such  competition  that  the  native  born,  in  certain  lines  of 
industry,  are  almost  entirely  eliminated.  This  has  been,  no 
doubt,  a  hardship  to  the  native-born  American  workingman. 
While  we  have  been  zealous  to  protect  the  American 
workingman  from  the  unfair  competition  of  European 
labor  by  high  protective  tariffs,  yet  inconsistently  we 
have  permitted  great  numbers  of  European  laborers  to 
compete  with  the  American  workingman  upon  his  own 
soil.  With  unrestricted  immigration  it  is  impossible  to 
maintain  a  minimum  wage  or  other  means  of  protecting 
the  standard  of  living  of  the  American  workingman.  On 
the  other  hand,  this  large  supply  of  cheap  labor,  as  we  have 
already  seen,  has  enabled  American  capitalists  to  develop 
American  industries  very  rapidly,  to  dominate  in  many 
cases  the  markets  of  the  world,  and  to  add  greatly  to  the 
wealth  of  the  country.  It  has  been  chiefly  the  large  em- 
ployers of  labor  in  the  United  States,  together  with  the 
steamship  companies,  who  have  opposed  any  considerable 
restrictions  upon  immigration,  and  thus  far  their  power 
with  Congress  has  successfully  prevented  the  passing  of 
stringent  immigration  laws.  On  the  whole,  it  is  probably 
true  that  if  industrial  arguments  alone  are  to  be  taken  into 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  233 

consideration  upon  the  immigration  problem,  the  weight 
of  the  argument  would  be  on  the  side  of  unrestricted  immi- 
gration. But  industrial  arguments  are  not  the  only  ones 
to  be  taken  into  consideration  in  considering  the  immigra- 
tion problem,  and  this  has  been  hitherto  one  of  the  great 
mistakes  of  many  in  discussing  the  problem. 

(2)  The  Social  Argument.     Many  of  our  recent  immi- 
grants are  at  least  very  difficult  of  social  assimilation. 
They  are  clannish,  tend  to  form  colonies  of  their  own  race 
in  which  their  language,  customs,  and  ideals  are  preserved. 
The  "  consciousness  of  kind,"  which  is  such  a  great  factor 
in  social  life,  while  it  binds  them  together,  works  at  the 
same  time  to  keep  them  separate  and  distinct  from  the  rest 
of  the  American  people.     This  is  especially  true  of  the  illiter~ 
ate  immigrants  from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe.     As  we 
have  already  seen,  the  rate  of  illiteracy  among  certain  of  our 
recent  immigrants  is  so  high  that  they  can  scarcely  be 
expected  to  participate  in  our  social  life.    Just  the  social 
effect  of  such  colonies  of  different  peoples  and  nationalities 
upon  our  own  social  life  and  institutions  cannot  well  be 
foreseen,  but  it  can  scarcely  be  a  good  effect.    The  public 
school,  it  is  true,  does  much  to  assimilate  to  American  ideals 
and  standards  the  children  of  even  the  most  unassimilable 
immigrants.    The  public  school  is  not  as  yet,  however,  a 
perfect  agency  of  socialization,  and  even  when  attended  by 
the  children  of  these  immigrants  they  fail  to  receive  from  it, 
in  many  cases,  the  higher  elements  of  our  culture  and  still 
continue  to  remain  essentially  foreign  in  their  thought  and 
actions. 

(3)  The  Political  Argument.     Many  of  these  immigrants 
are,  therefore,  incapable  of  understanding  and  appreciat- 


234  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

ing  our  free  institutions.     They  are  not  fit  to  vote  in- 
telligently, but  often  vote  even  before  naturalization  and 
form  a  very  large  per  cent  of  our  voting  population,  es- 
pecially in  our  large  cities.    As  a  rule,  they  do  not  sell 
their  votes,  but  their  votes  are  often  under  the  control  of  a 
few  leaders,  and  thus  they  are  able  to  hold,  oftentimes, 
the  balance  of  power  between  parties  and  factions.    It  is 
questionable  whether  democracy   can  work   successfully 
under  such  conditions.     It  must  be  admitted,  moreover, 
that  hitherto  democracy  has  been  successful  only  in  com- 
munities in  which  there  has  been  a  good  degree  of  mental 
and  moral  likeness  among  citizens,  that  is,  in  communities 
not  too  heterogeneous  in  their  elements. 
.   (4)     The  Racial  or  Biological  Argument.    Undoubtedly 
the  strongest  arguments  in  favor  of  further  restriction  upon 
immigration  into  the  United  States  are  of  a  biological  nature. 
The  peoples  that  are  coming  to  us  at  present  belong  to  a 
different  race  from  ours.     They  belong  to  the  Slavic  and 
Mediterranean   subraces   of    the   white   race.     Now,    the 
Slavic  and  Mediterranean  races  have  not  shown  the  capacity 
for  self-government  and  free  institutions  which  the  peoples 
of  Northern  and  Western  Europe  have  shown.     It  is  doubt- 
ful if  they  have  the  same  capacity  for  self-government. 
Moreover,  the  whole  history  of  the  social  life  and  social 
ideals  of  these  people  shows  them  to  have  been  in  their  past 
development  very  different  from  ourselves.     Of  course,  if 
heredity  counts  for  nothing,  it  will  only  be  a  few  generations 
before  the  descendants  of  these  people  will  be  as  good 
Americans  as  any.     But  this  is  the  question,  Does  heredity 
count  for  nothing  ?  or  does  blood  tell  ?    Are  habits  of  acting 
and,  therefore,  social  and  institutional  life,  dependent,  more 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  235 

or  less,  on  the  biological  heredity  of  peoples,  or  are  they 
entirely  independent  of  such  biological  influence?  There 
is  much  diversity  of  opinion  upon  this  question,  but  per- 
haps the  most  trustworthy  opinion  inclines  to  the  view 
that  racial  heredity,  even  between  subraces  of  the  white 
race,  is  a  factor  of  great  moment  and  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count. It  is  scarcely  probable  that  a  people  of  so  different 
racial  heredity  from  ourselves  as  the  Southern  Italians,  for 
example,  will  maintain  our  institutions  and  social  life  ex- 
actly as  those  of  our  blood  would  do.  It  is  impossible 
to  think  that  the  Latin  temperament  would  express  itself 
socially  in  the  same  ways  as  the  Teutonic  temperament. 
Certainly  the  coming  to  us  of  the  vast  numbers  of  peoples 
from  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe  is  destined  to  change 
our  physical  type,  and  it  seems  also  probable  that  if  per- 
mitted to  go  on,  it  will  change  our  mental  and  social  type 
also.  Whether  this  is  desirable  or  not  must  be  left  for  each 
individual  to  decide  for  liirnself . 

Another  phase  of  this  biological  argument  is  the  neces- 
sity of  selection,  if  we  are  to  avoid  introducing  into  our 
national  blood  the  degenerate  strains  in  the  oppressed 
peoples  of  Southern  and  Eastern  Europe.  If  selection 
counts  in  the  life  of  a  people,  as  practically  all  biologists 
agree,  then  the  American  people  certainly  have  a  great 
opportunity  to  exercise  selection  on  a  large  scale  to  deter- 
mine who  shall  be  the  parents  of  the  future  Americans. 
While  it  is  undesirable,  perhaps,  to  discriminate  among 
immigrants  on  the  ground  of  race,  it  would  certainly  be 
desirable  to  select  from  all  peoples  those  elements  that  we 
could  most  advantageously  incorporate  into  our  own  life. 
The  biological  argument  alone,  therefore,  seems  to  necessi- 


236  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

tate  the  admission  of  the  importance  of  rigid  selection  in  the 
matter  of  whom  we  shall  admit  into  this  country.  Hitherto 
little  has  been  accomplished  in  the  way  of  insuring  adequate 
health  and  physique  among  the  immigrants  admitted  into 
the  United  States.  All  that  has  been  attempted  thus  far 
has  been  to  debar  the  very  least  fit. 

The  Reconstruction  of  our  Immigration  Policy.  —  Ade- 
quate reconstruction  of  our  immigration  policy  requires  not 
only  reasonable  restrictions  upon  the  admission  of  immi- 
grants, but  positive  measures  to  insure  their  Americani- 
zation after  admission.  As  to  the  first,  it  must  be  said  that 
hitherto  our  laws  regarding  the  admission  of  immigrants 
have  been  very  far  from  scientific.  In  1907,  with  a  total 
immigration  of  1,285,000,  only  13,064  were  debarred  as 
unsuitable  for  admission,  a  trifle  over  one  per  cent.  From 
1892,  when  the  first  general  restriction  law  was  passed, 
down  to  1913,  the  total  immigrants  debarred  as  belonging 
to  excluded  classes  constituted  less  than  one  per  cent  of  the 
total  immigration,  an  absolutely  inadequate  selection  from 
any  sound  social  or  scientific  point  of  view.  Beginning  with 
the  large  immigration  of  1914,  of  1,218,000,  however,  and 
during  the  years  of  the  Great  War,  a  total  of  from  three 
to  eight  per  cent  of  immigrants  were  debarred  annually. 

The  chief  advance  made  during  the  War  toward  a  more 
rational  immigration  policy  was  the  enactment  of  the  im- 
migration law  of  1917,  which  among  other  things  provides 
for  the  exclusion  of  illiterate  immigrants  (those  who  cannot 
read  in  some  language)  who  are  over  sixteen  years  of  age. 
There  has  been  much  contention  over  this  feature  of  the 
law,  but  from  the  sociological  point  of  view  there  can  be 
little  doubt  as  to  its  wisdom.  The  ability  to  read,  and  thus 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  237 

to  participate  more  or  less  fully  in  the  life  of  the  society 
about  one,  is  a  necessary  foundation  not  only  for  social 
assimilation,  but  for  social  progress.  Democracy  means 
government  by  public  opinion;  but  the  chief  means  of 
forming  and  disseminating  public  opinion  is  now  the  press. 
Hence,  those  who  cannot  read  can  scarcely  function  in  a 
democracy,  especially  not  in  its  rational  progress.  More- 
over, it  has  been  shown  that  the  illiterate  immigrant  is 
most  liable  to  suffer  from  exploitation  and  adjusts  himself 
to  his  environment  with  greatest  difficulty.  Finally,  a 
literacy  test  will  probably  react  to  better  educational  and 
social  conditions  in  Europe.  Those  fleeing  from  religious 
persecution,  the  law  provided,  were  to  be  exempted  from 
the  test,  also  purely  political  offenders,  wives  and  daughters 
of  immigrants,  and  certain  near  relatives  above  fifty-five 
years  of  age. 

It  would  seem,  however,  that  a  literacy  test  is  a  very 
inadequate  control  over  immigration.  It  will  exclude  very 
few,  at  least  in  the  long  run,  and  by  itself  furnishes  no 
adequate  basis  for  rational  selection  among  immigrants. 
Economic  adjustment  is  fundamental  for  successful  assimi- 
lation; hence  scientific  control  over  immigration  must  take 
into  account  first  of  all  the  demand  for  labor  and  other 
economic  conditions.  This  can  probably  best  be  accom- 
plished by  a  permanent  immigration  commission  to  cal- 
culate the  labor  needs  of  the  country  each  year  in  advance. 

Preference  should  be  given  to  those  immigrants  who 
come  to  make  permanent  homes  in  the  United  States  and 
who  are  willing  to  declare  their  intention  to  become  citizens. 
The  majority  of  our  recent  immigrants  have  failed  to  be- 
come naturalized  citizens,  so  that  at  the  entrance  of  the 


238  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

United  States  into  the  War  it  was  estimated  that  nearly  one 
tenth  of  our  adult  male  population  were  aliens.  Certainly 
there  is  no  good  reason  for  admitting  the  military  reservists 
of  European  nations  into  the  United  States  without  restric- 
tion. Probably  the  problems  connected  with  the  presence 
of  aliens  in  the  United  States  can  best  be  met  by  a  federal 
bureau  for  the  registration  of  aliens  which  can  keep  track 
of  them  till  they  become  American  citizens. 

Present  tests  should  be  retained,  and  even  more  stringent 
tests  of  biological  and  social  fitness  should  be  added.  All 
tests  should,  of  course,  be  enforced  by  examining  immi- 
gration officers  at  ports  of  embarkation,  to  prevent  needless 
hardship  in  the  administration  of  restrictive  laws. 

The  general  principle  which  should  guide  in  all  immi- 
gration legislation  is  that  only  such  number  should  be 
admitted  as  we  can  successfully  assimilate  fully  in  our 
national  life.  For  this  reason  it  has  been  proposed  that 
the  maximum  permissible  annual  immigration  from  any 
people  should  be  a  definite  per  cent  (say  from  five  to  fifteen) 
of  those  from  that  people  who  have  already  become  natural- 
ized citizens,  the  per  cent  to  be  fixed  each  year  within  the 
specified  limits  by  a  commission  according  to  the  demand 
for  labor  and  other  national  circumstances.  This,  if  taken 
together  with  such  tests  for  admission  as  we  have  already 
suggested,  would  probably  come  as  near  a  scientific  law 
regulating  the  flow  of  immigration  as  it  is  possible  to 
devise. 

Measures  for  Americanization.  Even  more  important 
than  the  question  of  the  proper  selection  of  our  immigrants, 
is  the  question  of  the  assimilation  of  the  immigrants  that 
we  admit.  While  we,  perhaps,  cannot  be  too  careful  as  to 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  239 

whom  we  admit  into  our  national  household,  we  cannot 
do  too  much  for  those  whom  we  admit  to  a  share  in  our 
national  destinies.  Our  attitude  toward  the  immigrant 
should  be  positive  and  helpful,  not  negative.  Hitherto, 
it  must  be  admitted,  the  treatment  accorded  to  the  im- 
migrant has  been  mainly  one  of  neglect.  This  has  been 
in  accord  with  the  general  laissez-faire  attitude  which  has 
hitherto  characterized  our  immigration  policy,  and  illus- 
trates the  selfishness  and  sentimentality  of  our  treatment 
of  the  problem.  Through  sentimentality  and  selfishness 
the  open-door  policy  with  respect  to  European  immigra- 
tion of  all  sorts  has  been  maintained.  But  after  the  im- 
migrants have  arrived  we  have  been  content  to  let  their 
labor  be  selfishly  exploited  by  employers,  and  to  let  them 
live  and  rear  their  children  in  the  slums  of  our  great  cities. 
We  have  lacked,  in  other  words,  a  fine  sense  of  hospitality 
toward  the  immigrant  and  of  responsibility  for  him  and 
his  children.  Many,  indeed,  have  had  to  submit  to  hard- 
ships and  evils  in  American  life  which  they  would  never 
have  experienced  had  they  remained  at  home. 

Probably  the  first  machinery  needed  for  a  constructive 
policy  toward  our  immigrants  is  a  federal  bureau  for  their 
better  distribution,  both  geographically  and  industrially. 
There  should  be  cooperation  between  the  federal  and  the 
state  governments  in  this  matter,  and  cooperation  between 
them  and  private  employers  and  employment  agencies, 
with  supervision  of  both  of  these  latter  to  see  that  they 
in  no  way  exploit  the  immigrant.  Economic  adjustment 
is  the  first  step  necessary  to  Americanize  the  immigrant. 

Equally  important  is  the  work  of  Americanizing  the 
immigrant  and  his  children  through  the  public  schools. 


240  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

There  should  be  in  every  community  where  there  are 
sufficient  numbers  night  schools  for  the  instruction  of 
immigrant  adults  in  English,  in  trades,  and  in  the  rudi- 
ments of  citizenship.  For  the  children  of  the  foreign-born 
the  public  schools  should  especially  pay  much  more  atten- 
tion to  social  and  political  education,  particularly  to 
education  in  American  social  and  political  ideals,  than 
they  have  hitherto  done.  But  this,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
is  equally  a  need  of  children  of  American  parents. 

Finally,  in  the  work  of  distribution,  of  economic  adjust- 
ment, of  education,  and  of  the  general  social  adjustment 
of  the  immigrant  the  aid  of  many  private  agencies  must 
be  enlisted.  Immigrant  aid  societies,  the  Y.  M.  C.  A., 
churches,  and  philanthropic  agencies  have  yet  much  to  do 
before  adequate  machinery  to  Americanize  the  immigrant 
will  be  hi  existence.  But,  in  short  and  above  all,  the  whole 
attitude  of  the  American  people  toward  the  immigrant 
must  be  changed.  We  must  be  willing  to  give  those  whom 
we  receive  into  our  national  household  equal  opportunity 
with  ourselves  and  to  receive  them  on  a  footing  of  equality. 

Asiatic  Immigration.  —  The  statement  that  there  is 
no  good  social  or  political  argument  for  the  prohibition  of 
immigration  does  not  apply  to  Asiatic  immigration.  Here 
the  importance  of  the  racial  factor  becomes  so  pronounced 
that  it  may  well  be  doubted  if  a  policy  of  practical  ex- 
clusion toward  the  immigration  of  Asiatic  laborers  would 
not  be  the  wisest  in  the  long  run  for  the  people  of  this 
country. 

It  is  true  that  but  few  Asiatic  immigrants  have  as  yet 
come  to  this  country,  but  there  are  grave  reasons  for 
believing  that  if  the  policy  of  exclusion  had  not  been 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  241 

adopted  in  the  nineteenth  century,  Asiatic  immigration 
would  now  constitute  a  very  considerable  proportion  of 
our  total  immigration.  It  is  chiefly  the  Chinese  who  have 
been  the  main  element  in  Asiatic  immigration,  and  between 
1851  and  1900  the  Chinese  sent  us  a  total  of  only  310,000 
immigrants;  and  in  1882,  the  year  the  first  Chinese  Ex- 
clusion Law  was  enacted,  there  were  about  130,000  Chinese 
in  the  United  States.  In  1910  the  census  showed  only  a 
total  of  7 1 ,53 1  Chinese  in  this  country,  exclusive  of  Hawaii. 
The  Chinese  in  continental  United  States  were  massed  in 
1910  chiefly  in  the  Pacific  Coast  states,  there  being  51,934 
Chinese  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  and  Pacific  Coast  states, 
of  which  number  36,248  were  in  California  alone.  The 
Japanese  in  continental  United  States  in  1910  numbered 
72,157,  of  whom  68,250  were  in  the  Rocky  Mountain  and 
Pacific  Coast  states,  41,356  being  in  California  alone. 

In  judging  this  question  of  Asiatic  immigration  we  should 
accept  to  a  certain  extent  the  opinion  of  the  people  of  the 
Pacific  Coast  regarding  the  problems  which  these  Asiatic 
immigrants  create.  At^any  rate,  the  opinion  of  any  group 
of  people  who  are  closest  to  a  social  problem  should  not  be 
disregarded,  as  there  are  probabilities  of  error  on  the  part 
of  the  distant  observer  of  conditions  as  well  as  on  the  part 
of  those  ^ho  stand  very  close  to  a  social  problem.  Just  as 
we  shbuld  accept  the  opinion  of  the  Southern  people  in 
regard  to  the  negro  problem  as  worth  something,  so  we 
should  accept  the  judgment  of  the  people  of  our  Western 
states  in  regard  to  the  Chinese  and  Japanese  also  as  worth 
something.  Now,  as  regards  the  Chinese,  the  people  of 
the  Pacific  Coast  say  they  would  rather  have  the  negro 
among  them  than  the  Chinese.  They  have  numerous 


242  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

objections  to  the  Chinese,  similar  to  the  various  lines  of 
argument  which  have  already  been  given  in  favor  of  the 
restriction  of  immigration. 

(1)  They  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  Chinese  work 
for  wages  below  the  minimum  necessary  to  maintain  life 
for  the  white  man,  and  so  reduce  the  standard  of  living  and 
crowd  out  the  white  workingman.     There  can  scarcely  be 

J  any  question  that  the  white  laboring  man  is  not  able  to 
compete  economically  with  the  Chinese  laborer  under 
present  conditions. 

(2)  Again,  they  claim  that  the  Chinese  make  no  con- 
tribution to  the  permanent  welfare  of  the  country;  that 
they  come  here  to  exploit  the  country  economically,  to 
attain  a  competence,  and  then  return  to  China. 

(3)  It  is  claimed  that  the   Chinese  often  become  in 
America  grossly  immoral,  that  they  become  addicted  to 
the  opium  habit  and  other  vices,  and  that  so  few  women 
come  among  the  Chinese  immigrants  that  Chinese  men 
menace  the  virtue  of  white  women. 

(4)  The  Chinese  do  not  readily  assimilate.    They  keep 
their  language,  religion,  and  customs.     They  live  largely 
by  themselves,   and  are  even  more  completely  isolated 
from  American  social  life  than  the  negro.    In  comparison 
with  them,  indeed,  one  is  struck  with  the  fact  that  the 
negro  has  our  customs,  our  religion,  our  language,  and,  in 
so  far  as  he  has  been  able  to  attain  them,  our  moral  stand- 
ards, but  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  Chinese.     Then- 
cultural  differences  from  us,  along  with  then*  racial  differ- 
ences, lead  to  social  isolation  and  racial  antagonisms,  and 
so  make  assimilation  difficult. 

(5)  The  last  and  strongest  argument  in  favor  of  the 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  243 

general  exclusion  of  Chinese  laborers  from  this  country, 
however,  is  the  racial  argument.  The  Chinese  are  just 
as  different  in  race  from  us  as  the  negro,  and  if  racial 
heredity  counts  for  anything  it  is  doubtful  if  we  can  assim- 
ilate them  to  the  social  type  of  the  whites. 

If  we  open  our  doors  to  the  mass  of  Chinese  laborers 
China  would  be  able  to  swamp  us  with  Chinese  immigrants. 
With  its  hundreds  of  millions  of  population  China  could 
spare  to  us  several  hundred  thousand  immigrants  each 
year  without  feeling  the  loss.  If  we  wish  to  keep  the  west- 
ern third  of  our  country,  therefore,  a  white  man's  country 
it  would  be  well  not  to  open  the  doors  to  Chinese  immi- 
grants. It  is  certain  that  if  we  open  our  doors  to  the  mass 
of  Chinese  immigrants  we  shall  have  another  racial  problem 
in  the  West  such  as  we  now  have  in  the  South  with  the 
negro.  Those  who  claim  upon  the  basis  of  sentiment  or 
humanity  that  we  should  open  our  doors  and  attempt 
to  civilize  and  christianize  the  flood  of  Chinese  who  might 
come  to  us,  probably  do  not  appreciate  fully  the  social 
status  of  the  Chinese  or  the  social  status  of  the  American 
people.  The  truth  is  we  are  not  yet  ourselves  enough 
civilized  to  undertake  the  work  of  civilizing  and  christian- 
izing a  very  considerable  number  of  people  alien  to  our- 
selves in  race,  religion,  and  social  ideals.  Again,  those 
who  advocate  the  free  admission  of  the  Chinese  probably 
do  not  appreciate  the  importance  of  the  element  of  racial 
heredity  in  social  problems.  The  negro  problem  should 
have  taught  us  by  this  time  that  this  factor  of  racial  heredity 
is  not  to  be  discounted  altogether. 

Chinese  immigration  has  been  used  to  illustrate  the 
problem  of  Asiatic  immigration  in  general.  It  is  not  sur- 


244  THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM 

prising  that  the  people  of  the  Pacific  Coast  demand  also 
the  exclusion  of  Japanese  and  other  Asiatic  immigrants. 
While  Japan  has  not  the  immense  population  of  China, 
and  while  the  Japanese  are  perhaps  a  more  adaptable 
people  than  the  Chinese,  still  it  would  seem  that  in  the  main 
the  people  of  the  Pacific  Coast  are  justified  in  their  fears  of 
the  results  of  a  large  Japanese  immigration.  For  the  peace 
of  both  countries  and  of  the  world,  therefore,  it  is  to  be 
hoped  that  the  influx  of  Japanese  laborers  into  our  Western 
states  will  continue  to  be  prevented  without  any  disruption 
of  the  friendship  of  the  United  States  and  Japan.  The 
same  thing  can  be  said  regarding  the  Hindu  immigrants 
who  are  just  beginning  to  come  to  us.  It  would  appear  that 
the  wisest  policy,  therefore,  regarding  all  Asiatic  immigra- 
tion is  the  exclusion  of  Asiatic  laborers,  and  as  these  would 
constitute  over  nine  tenths  of  all  Asiatic  immigrants  who 
might  come  to  us,  this  would  assure  a  practical  solution  of 
the  problem.  Perhaps  the  best  way  to  accomplish  this, 
as  has  already  been  suggested,  is  a  general  law  limiting  the 
maximum  permissible  annual  immigration  from  any  people 
to  a  small  per  cent  of  those  from  that  people  who  have 
already  become  citizens. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

FAIRCHILD,  Immigration,  Chaps.  XVII-XVIII. 

Ross,  The  Old  World  in  the  New,  Chaps.  IX-XI. 

WARNE,  The  Tide  of  Immigration,  Chaps.  XXVTII-XXIX. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

ABBOTT,  The  Immigrant  and  the  Community. 

BOGARDUS,  Americanization. 

COMMONS,  Races  and  Immigrants  in  America. 


THE  IMMIGRATION  PROBLEM  245 

HALL,  Immigration  and  its  Effects  upon  the  United  States. 

HOURWICH,  Immigration  and  Labor. 

JENKS  and  LAUCK,  The  Immigration  Problem,  Revised  Edition. 

MAYO-SMITH,  Emigration  and  Immigration. 

ROBERTS,  The  New  Immigration. 

Ross,  Social  Psychology,  Chap.  XIII. 

STEINER,  The  Immigrant  Tide. 

WARNE,  The  Immigrant  Invasion. 

Report  of  the  Immigration  Commission,  42  vols. 

Annual  Reports  of  the  Commissioner-General  of  Immigration. 

On  Asiatic  Immigration: 

COOLIDGE,  Chinese  Immigration. 
GULICK,  The  American-Japanese  Problem. 
MILLIS,  The  Japanese  Problem  in  the  United  States. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  NEGRO   PROBLEM 

ALREADY  we  have  been  brought  in  our  study  of  the  im- 
migration problem  to  race  problems  —  problems  of  the 
relations  of  races  to  one  another  and  of  their  mutual  adjust- 
ment. The  negro  problem  is  one  of  many  race  problems 
which  the  United  States  has,  but  because  it  is  the  most 
pressing  of  all  of  our  race  problems  it  is  frequently  spoken 
of  as  the  race  problem.  An  unsolved  element  in  all  race 
problems  is  the  influence  of  the  biological  factor  of  racial 
heredity,  and  this  factor  we  must  seek  to  understand  and 
estimate  at  the  very  outset  of  any  scientific  study  of  the 
negro  problem. 

Racial  Heredity  as  a  Factor  in  Social  Evolution.  —  We 
have  already  seen  that  racial  heredity  is  the  most  im- 
portant and  at  the  same  time  the  least  known  factor 
in  the  problem  of  immigration.  While  there  is  still  much 
disagreement  among  scientific  men  as  to  the  importance 
of  racial  heredity  in  social  problems,  it  can  be  said  that  the 
weight  of  opinion  inclines  to  the  view  that  racial  heredity  is 
a  very  real  factor,  and  one  which  cannot  be  left  altogether 
out  of  account  in  studying  social  problems.  The  view 
of  Buckle  that  racial  heredity  counts  for  nothing  in  ex- 
plaining the  social  life  of  various  peoples  is  not  upheld 
by  modern  biologists.  On  the  contrary,  the  biological 
view  would  emphasize  the  importance  of  species  and  racial 
heredity  in  all  problems  connected  with  life;  thus  no 

246 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  247 

one  denies  that  between  different  species  of  animals  hered- 
ity counts  for  practically  everything  in  explaining  their  life 
activities.  But  man  no  longer  lives  a  purely  animal  life, 
and  racial  heredity  as  a  factor  in  his  social  life  may  be  easily 
exaggerated.  Civilization  is  a  complex  of  acquired  habits, 
and  hence  the  appeal  to  racial  heredity  to  explain  human 
social  conditions  must  be  only  as  a  last  resort.  Never- 
theless, since  heredity  affects  the  conduct  of  each  individual, 
so  must  racial  heredity  affect  the  conduct  of  a  race.  No 
such  thing  as  biological  uniformity  exists  even  among  in- 
dividuals of  the  same  race,  and  hence  their  responses  to 
the  same  stimuli  vary  according  to  their  hereditary  pecul- 
iarities. Even  more  is  there  diversity  among  the  human 
races.  Each  of  the  great  human  races  was  specialized  in  a 
different  geographic  area  under  peculiar  conditions  of  life. 
This  caused  their  hereditary  or  instinctive  reactions  to  vary 
considerably  in  degree,  though  probably  not  in  quality, 
and  gave  to  each  race  its  peculiar  temperament  or  hered- 
itary disposition.  Whether  human  races  vary  much  hi  the 
capacity  for  developing  intelligence  is  uncertain,  but  it  is 
obvious  that  the  natural  disposition  or  temperament  of 
each  would  color  their  feelings,  ideas,  and  modes  of  conduct. 

Indirectly  also  racial  heredity  affects  social  evolution,  be- 
cause of  the  obvious  physical  differences  it  produces  between 
races.  Through  the  "consciousness  of  kind"  likes  attract, 
while  unlikes  usually  repel.  Hence  obvious  racial  differences 
tend  to  develop  racial  separation  and  racial  antagonisms. 

It  may  be  noted,  however,  that  taking  racial  heredity 
into  full  account  by  no  means  leads  to  an  attitude  of  fatal- 
ism as  regards  racial  problems.  On  the  contrary  modern 
biology  clearly  teaches  that  racial  heredity  is  modifiable 


248  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

both  in  the  individual  and  in  the  race.  It  is  modifiable 
in  the  individual  through  education  or  training;  it  is 
modifiable  in  the  race  through  selection.  Therefore 
racial  heredity  does  not  foredoom  any  people  to  remain 
in  a  low  status  of  culture;  only  it  must  be  taken  into 
account  in  explaining  the  cultural  conditions  of  all  peoples, 
and  especially  in  planning  for  a  people's  social  ameliora- 
tion. 

The  Racial  Heredity  of  the  Negro.  —  It  is  generally 
agreed  by  anthropologists  and  biologists  that  mankind 
constitutes  but  a  single  species,  developed  from  a  single 
pre-human  anthropoid  stock.  The  various  races  of  man- 
kind have  had,  therefore,  a  common  origin,  but  having 
developed  in  different  geographical  areas  they  each  pre- 
sent certain  peculiar  racial  traits  adapting  each  to  the 
environment  in  which  it  was  developed.  Now,  the  negro 
race  is  that  part  of  mankind  which  was  developed  in  the 
tropics.  In  all  the  negro's  physical  and  mental  make-up 
he  shows  complete  adaptation  to  a  tropical  environment. 
The  dark  color  of  his  skin,  for  example,  was  developed  by 
natural  selection  to  exclude  the  injurious  actinic  rays  of 
the  sun.  The  various  ways  in  which  the  negro's  tropical 
environment  influenced  the  development  of  his  mind, 
particularly  of  his  instincts,  cannot  be  here  entered  into 
in  detail.  Suffice  to  say  that  the  African  environment 
of  the  ancestors  of  the  present  negroes  in  the  United 
States  deeply  stamped  itself  upon  the  innate  traits  and 
tendencies  of  the  race.  For  example,  the  tropical  environ- 
ment is  generally  unfavorable  to  severe  bodily  labor. 
Persons  who  work  hard  in  the  tropics  are,  in  other  words, 
apt  to  be  eliminated  by  natural  selection.  On  the  other 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  249 

hand,  nature  furnishes  a  bountiful  supply  of  food  without 
much  labor.  Hence,  the  tropical  environment  of  the  negro 
failed  to  develop  in  him  an  energetic  nature,  but  favored 
the  survival  of  those  naturally  shiftless  and  lazy.  Again, 
the  extremely  high  death  rate  in  Africa  necessitated  a 
correspondingly  high  birth  rate  in  order  that  any  race 
living  there  might  survive;  hence,  nature  fixed  in  the  negro 
strong  sexual  propensities  in  order  to  secure  such  a  high 
birth  rate. 

It  is  not  claimed  that  the  shiftlessness  and  sensuality  of 
the  masses  of  the  American  negroes  to-day  can  be  wholly 
attributed  to  hereditary  influences,  but  it  would  be  a  great 
mistake  to  suppose  that  the  tropical  environment  did  not 
have  something  to  do  with  these  two  dominant  character- 
istics of  the  present  American  negro.  So  we  might  go 
through  the  whole  list  of  the  conspicuous  traits  and  tend- 
encies of  the  American  negro,  and  in  practically  every 
case  we  would  find  good  reason  for  believing  that  these 
racial  traits  and  tendencies  are  at  least  in  part  instinctive, 
that  is,  due  to  the  influence  of  racial  heredity. 

The  question  is  frequently  raised  whether  the  negro  is 
inferior  by  nature  to  the  white  man  or  not.  It  is  obvious 
from  what  has  been  said  that  the  negro  may,  on  the  side 
of  his  instinctive  or  hereditary  equipment,  be  inferior  to 
the  white  man  in  his  natural  adaptiveness  to  a  complex 
civilization  existing  under  very  different  climatic  con- 
ditions from  those  in  which  he  was  evolved.  This  does 
not  mean,  however,  that  the  negro  is  in  any  sense  a  degen- 
erate. On  the  contrary,  from  the  point  of  view  of  a  tropi- 
cal environment,  the  negro  may  be  regarded  as  the  white 
man's  superior  in  the  capacity  to  survive.  It  is  only 


250  THE   NEGRO   PROBLEM 

in  countries  out  of  his  own  natural  environment,  under 
strange  conditions  of  life  to  which  he  has  not  yet  become 
biologically  adapted,  that  the  negro  is  inferior  to  the  white 
man.  In  Africa  he  is  the  white  man's  superior  if  we  adopt 
survival  as  the  test  of  superiority. 

Influence  of  Slavery  on  the  Negro.  —  There  is  no  longer 
any  doubt  that  the  influence  of  slavery  on  the  negro,  as 
a  form  of  industry,  was  both  beneficent  and  maleficent. 
The  negroes  brought  to  America  by  the  slave  traders  were 
subject  to  a  very  severe  artificial  selection,  which,  perhaps, 
secured  a  better  type  of  negro  physically  on  the  whole, 
and  a  more  docile  type  mentally;  but  the  chief  beneficent 
influence  of  slavery  on  the  negro  was  that  it  taught  him 
to  work,  to  some  extent  at  least.  Moreover,  it  gave  the 
negro  the  Anglo-Saxon  tongue  and  the  rudiments  of  our 
morality,  religion,  and  civilization. 

On  the  other  hand,  slavery  did  not  fit  the  individual  or 
the  race  for  a  life  of  freedom,  and  did  not  raise  moral 
standards  much  above  those  of  Africa.  The  monogamic 
form  of  the  family  was,  to  be  sure,  enforced  upon  the 
slaves,  but  the  family  life  was  often  broken  up;  for  even 
when  the  owner  of  the  slaves  was  kind-hearted  and  humane, 
on  his  death  his  property  would  be  sold  and  the  families 
of  his  slaves  scattered.  Under  such  conditions  it  is  not 
surprising  that  the  negro  learned  little  of  family  morality. 
Again,  being  property  himself,  the  negro  could  not  be 
taught  properly  to  appreciate  the  rights  of  property. 
Finally  slavery  failed  to  develop  in  the  slave  that  self- 
mastery  and  self-control  which  are  necessary  for  free 
social  life.  Admirable  as  slavery  was  in  some  ways  as  a 
school  for  an  uncultivated  people,  it  failed  utterly  in  other 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  251 

ways ;  and  it  surely  should  not  be  difficult  to  devise  methods 
of  training  at  the  present  time  which  are  superior  to  any- 
thing that  slavery  as  a  school  for  the  industrial  training 
of  the  negro  could  possibly  have  accomplished. 

Statistics  of  the  Negro  Problem  in  the  United  States.  — 
The  following  table  will  show  the  percentage  of  negroes 
in  the  population  of  the  United  States  at  different  dec- 
ades ("Negro,"  in  census  terminology,  includes  all  persons 
of  negro  descent)  : 

Per  cent. 

1790 19-27 

1800 18.88 

1810 19-03 

1830 18.10 

1840 16.84 

1850 15.69 

1860 14.13 

1870 12.60 

1880 13.12 

1890 11.93 

1900 11.63 

1910 10.69 

In  1860  the  total  number  of  negroes  in  the  population  of  the 
United  States  was  4,441,000.  Forty  years  later,  in  1900, 
the  number  had  almost  doubled,  having  reached  8,840,000 
In  1910  the  total  number  of  negroes  had  reached  9,827,000. 
Nevertheless,  it  will  be  seen  from  the  above  table  that  the 
percentage  of  negroes  in  the  total  population  has  steadily 
diminished,  although  the  negro  population  doubled  between 
1860  and  1900.  Between  1900  and  1910  the  comparative 
rates  of  increase  for  the  whites  and  negroes  were:  whites, 
22.3  per  cent;  negroes,  11.2  per  cent. 

Geographical  Distribution  of  the  Negroes.  The  negro 
problem  would  not  be  so  acute  in  certain  sections  of  the 


252  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

country  if  negroes  were  distributed  evenly  over  the  country 
instead  of  being  massed  as  they  are  in  certain  sections. 
Nearly  ninety  per  cent  of  the  total  number  of  negroes  in  the 
country  live  in  the  South  Atlantic  and  South  Central  states. 
Moreover,  over  eighty  per  cent  live  in  the  so-called  "  Black 
Belt  "  states,  —  the  "  Black  Belt  "  being  a  chain  of  coun- 
ties stretching  from  Virginia  to  Texas  in  which  over  half  of 
the  population  are  negroes.  The  following  table  shows 
the  percentage  of  negro  population  in  these  states  of  the 
"  Black  Belt  "  in  1910: 

Per  cent. 

Alabama 42.5 

Arkansas 28.1 

Florida 41.0 

Georgia 45.1 

Louisiana 43.1 

Mississippi 56.2 

North  Carolina 31.6 

South  Carolina 55.2 

Tennessee 21.7 

Texas 17.7 

Virginia 32.6 

While  in  only  two  of  these  states  is  there  an  absolute 
preponderance  of  negroes,  yet  these  statistics  give  no 
idea  of  the  massing  of  negroes  in  certain  localities.  In 
Washington  County,  Mississippi,  for  example,  the  negroes 
number  41,600,  the  whites  7291 ;  in  Tunica  County, 
Mississippi,  the  negroes  number  16,910,  the  whites  1728. 
In  many  counties  in  the  "  Black  Belt  "  more  than  three 
fourths  of  the  population  are  negroes.  It  is  in  these  states, 
and  especially  in  the  Black  Belt  itself,  that  the  negro  pop- 
ulation is  rapidly  increasing. 

Increase  of  Negro  in  States  since  1860.    The  following 
table  will  show  the  percentage  of  negroes  in  the  population 


THE   NEGRO  PROBLEM 


253 


in  the  former  slave-holding  states  of  the  country  in  1860 
and  in  1910: 


States. 

1860. 
Per  cent. 

1910. 

Per  cent. 

Alabama  

4.C.4. 

4.2.  C 

Arkansas  

2<;.6 

28.1 

Delaware  

IO  ^ 

I?  A. 

Florida  

44.6 

4.1 

Georgia  

44 

4.C  t 

Kentucky  

2O  d 

II  d. 

Louisiana  

40.  C 

4.7.1 

Maryland  

24.0 

I7.Q 

Mississippi  

CC.7 

"56.2 

Missouri  

IO 

4.8 

North  Carolina  

•26.4 

*i.6 

South  Carolina  

58.6 

CC.2 

Tennessee  

2C.C 

21.7 

Texas  

2Q.1 

17.7 

Virginia  

42 

^2.6 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  states  whose  relative  negro  popu- 
lation has  increased  since  the  war  are  Arkansas,  Mississippi, 
and  Georgia,  while  in  South  Carolina  and  Alabama  the 
proportion  of  negroes  has  declined  but  slightly. 

In  the  decade  from  1900  to  1910,  only  the  state  of  Ar- 
kansas of  the  above  states  showed  a  more  rapid  increase  of 
its  negro  population  than  of  its  white  population.  In  the 
border  Southern  states,  moreover,  of  Maryland,  Kentucky, 
Tennessee,  and  Missouri  the  negro  population  decreased 
absolutely. 

In  some  Northern  states  the  census  of  1910  showed 
the  negro  population  to  be  increasing  more  rapidly  than 
the  white  population.  In  New  York,  Pennsylvania, 
Illinois,  and  Ohio,  for  example,  the  negro  population  in- 


254  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

creased  more  rapidly  than  the  white  population,  but  the 
number  of  negroes  in  these  states  was  still  in  1910  compara- 
tively small,  New  York  having  134,000;  Pennsylvania, 
194,000;  Illinois,  109,000;  and  Ohio,  111,000.  This  in- 
crease of  negro  population  in  certain  Northern  states  is, 
of  course,  due  to  the  immigration  of  the  negro  into  those 
states.  During  the  Great  War  it  is  estimated  that  over 
300,000  negroes  immigrated  to  the  North.  The  immigra- 
tion of  the  negro  into  the  North  might  be  regarded  as  a 
fortunate  movement,  serving  to  distribute  the  negro  popula- 
tion more  evenly  over  the  whole  country,  were  it  not  that 
negro  vital  statistics  in  these  Northern  states  show  that  the 
negroes  in  these  states  do  not  maintain  their  numbers, 
and,  were  it  not  for  immigration,  would  soon  disappear. 

The  Urban  Negro  Population.  27.4  per  cent  of  the  total 
negro  population  in  1910  lived  in  cities,  while  the  remainder 
lived  in  small  towns  and  country  districts.  The  following 
great  cities  had  a  high  percentage  of  negroes: 

Memphis 40 .  o 

Birmingham 39.4 

Richmond 36.5 

Atlanta 33.5 

Nashville 33 .  i 

Washington 28.5 

New  Orleans 26 . 3 

Some  smaller  Southern  cities  have,  of  course,  a  much 
higher  percentage  of  negroes  in  their  population.  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  mass  of  the  negroes  in  the  United  States 
still  live  in  rural  districts.  This  is  fortunate;  for  on  the 
whole  statistics  show  that  the  most  prosperous  and  socially 
efficient  negro  is  the  negro  on  the  farm.  Within  recent 
years  there  has  been  a  considerable  movement  of  the  ne- 
groes to  the  cities.  This  is  extremely  significant  for  the 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  255 

social  condition  of  the  negro,  because  the  mass  of  negroes, 
not  yet  adapted  in  general  to  the  environment  of  civili- 
zation, are  still  less  adapted  to  the  environment  which  the 
modem  city  affords  them. 

The  Social  Condition  of  the  Negroes  in  the  United 
States.  —  (i)  Intermixture  of  Races.  Ever  since  the  negro 
came  to  this  country  he  has  been  having  his  racial  char- 
acteristics modified  by  the  infusion  of  white  blood.  The 
census  of  1910  attempted  to  make  an  estimate  of  the  num- 
ber of  negroes  of  mixed  blood  in  the  United  States.  The 
number  returned  as  being  of  mixed  blood  was  2,050,000, 
but  the  best  authorities  agree  that  this  number  understates 
the  actual  number.  Experts  in  ethnology  have  estimated 
that  from  one  third  to  one  half  of  the  negroes  in  the  United 
States  show  traces  of  white  intermixture.  The  lower 
estimate,  that  one  third  of  the  negroes  of  the  United  States 
have  more  or  less  white  blood,  is  quite  generally  accepted 
by  those  who  have  carefully  investigated  the  matter.  Of 
course  the  proportion  of  negroes  of  mixed  blood  varies 
greatly  in  different  localities.  In  communities  in  the  border 
states  frequently  more  than  one  half  of  the  negroes  show 
marked  traces  of  white  intermixture.  But  hi  the  isolated 
rural  regions  of  the  South,  where  the  negroes  predominate, 
the  full-blood  negro  is  by  far  the  more  common  type. 

This  infusion  of  white  blood  into  a  portion  of  the  negro 
population  is  significant  sociologically.  It  is  the  negroes 
of  mixed  blood  who  are  ambitious  socially  and  who  present 
some  of  the  most  acute  phases  of  the  negro  problem.  It  is 
from  the  mixed  bloods  that  the  leaders  of  the  race  in  this 
country  have  come.  The  pure  negro  without  intermixture 
of  white  blood  has  hitherto  seemed  incapable  of  leadership. 


25&  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

Such  men  as  Booker  T.  Washington,  Professor  Du  Bois, 
and  most  other  negro  leaders  have  had  a  considerable 
mixture  of  white  blood.  Dr.  E.  B.  Reuter  has  shown 
that  out  of  4267  prominent  negro  leaders  in  various  lines 
only  447,  a  little  over  10  per  cent,  can  be  considered  as 
probably  pure  blood  negroes.  Indeed,  practically  all  of 
the  negroes  who  have  been  eminent  in  literature,  science, 
art,  or  statesmanship  have  come  from  the  class  of  mixed 
bloods. 

But  the  infusion  of  white  blood  has  also  in  some  ways 
been  a  detriment  to  the  negro.  The  illegitimate  off- 
spring resulting  from  the  unions  of  white  fathers  and  negro 
mothers  are  frequently  the  product  of  conditions  of  vice. 
The  consequence  is  that  the  child  of  mixed  origin  frequently 
has  a  degenerate  heredity  and,  coming  into  the  world  as 
a  bastard,  is  more  or  less  in  disfavor  with  both  races; 
hence  the  social  environment  of  the  mulatto  as  well  as  his 
heredity  is  oftentimes  peculiarly  unfavorable.  It  is  not 
surprising,  therefore,  to  find  among  the  mulattoes  a  great 
amount  of  constitutional  diseases  and  a  great  tendency 
to  crime  and  immorality.  Again  mulatto  women  are 
more  frequently  debauched  by  white  men  than  the  pure 
blood  negro  women,  and  for  this  reason  negro  women  of 
mixed  blood  are  more  apt  to  be  immoral.  So  we  see  that 
while  the  mixed  bloods  have  furnished  the  leaders  of  their 
race,  they  have  also  furnished  an  undue  proportion  of  its 
vice  and  crime.  This  is  exactly  what  we  should  expect 
when  we  understand  the  social  conditions  existing  between 
the  races  and  the  origin  and  social  environment  of  the 
mulatto. 

The  crime  and  vice  and  constitutional  diseases  of  the 


THE   NEGRO  PROBLEM  257 

mulatto  do  not  prove  that  degeneracy  results  from  the 
intermixture  of  the  two  races,  as  was  once  supposed.  On 
the  contrary,  as  we  have  already  seen,  all  of  these  things 
result  from  the  fact  that  the  crossing  of  the  races  takes 
place  under  socially  abnormal  conditions,  that  is,  under 
conditions  of  vice.  This  is  not,  however,  true  in  all  cases 
and  particularly  it  was  not  true  of  all  intermixture  that 
took  place  under  the  regime  of  slavery.  Rather  inter- 
mixture under  such  circumstances  approached  not  vice, 
as  we  understand  the  word,  but  polygyny.  Consequently 
some  of  the  best  blood  of  the  South  runs  in  the  veins  of 
some  of  the  mulattoes.  Again,  we  have  examples  from 
other  countries  of  the  crossing  of  the  two  races,  negro  and 
white,  without  physical  degeneracy.  In  the  West  Indies 
and  in  Brazil  this  crossing  is  frequently  taking  place,  and 
many  of  the  best  families  of  those  countries  have  a  slight 
amount  of  negro  blood  in  their  veins.  From  instances 
like  this,  gathered  from  all  over  the  world,  it  has  generally 
been  concluded  by  anthropologists  that  no  evil  physiolog- 
ical results  necessarily  follow  the  intermixture  of  races, 
even  the  most  diverse,  but  that  all  supposed  physiological 
evils  coming  from  the  intermixture  of  races  really  come 
from  social  rather  than  from  physiological  causes. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  white  race  and  from  the 
point  of  view  of  the  negro  race  such  racial  intermixture, 
outside  of  the  bounds  of  law,  may  be  for  many  reasons 
undesirable.  But  we  are  here  concerned  with  noting  only 
the  social  effect  of  the  intermixture  that  has  gone  on  in 
the  past;  and  we  see  that  on  the  one  hand  it  has  resulted 
in  creating  a  class  of  so-called  negroes  in  whom  white 
blood  and  the  ambitions  and  energy  of  the  white  race 


258  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

predominate,  and  on  the  other  hand  it  has  also  resulted 
in  creating  a  degenerate  mixed  stock  who  furnish  the  major- 
ity of  criminals  and  vicious  persons  belonging  to  the  so- 
called  negro  race. 

(2)  Criminality  of  the  Negro.  One  of  the  most  impor- 
tant features  of  the  negro  problem  in  the  United  States 
is  the  strong  tendency  among  the  negroes  toward  crime; 
and  this,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  especially  manifest  in 
those  of  mixed  origin.  The  census  of  1910  showed  that 
in  1910  there  were  in  the  South  five  white  prisoners  to 
every  ten  thousand  whites,  but  thirty-two  negro  pris- 
oners to  every  ten  thousand  negroes,  while  in  the  North 
there  were  nine  white  prisoners  to  every  ten  thousand 
whites,  but  eighty  negro  prisoners  to  every  ten  thousand 
negroes.  These  statistics  show  that  the  negro  is  every- 
where more  criminal  than  the  white,  and  that  his  tendency 
toward  crime  increases  as  we  go  North,  doubtless  largely 
because  in  the  North  he  lives  in  cities  in  a  more  complex 
environment  and  finds  greater  difficulty  in  making  social 
adjustments.  Moreover,  negro  crime  has  been  increasing. 
From  1890  to  1904  the  negro  prisoners  in  the  state  prisons 
of  the  United  States  increased  50  per  cent,  while  the  white 
prisoners  increased  only  22  per  cent.  The  latest  statistics, 
however,  indicate  that  since  1907  there  has  been  at  least 
a  temporary  decrease  in  negro  crime  in  Northern  cities. 
Thus  in  New  York,  Chicago,  and  Philadelphia  in  1906  the 
ratio  of  negro  arrests  to  the  total  negro  population  of  those 
cities  was  one  to  seven,  while  in  1910  it  was  only  one  to  ten. 
The  criminality  of  the  negro  is  doubtless  in  part  a  matter 
of  social  environment,  because  we  see  that  negro  crime  in- 
creases in  cities  and  in  the  more  complex  Northern  com- 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  259 

munities;  but  it  is  also  to  a  large  extent  a  matter  of  the 
negro's  cultural  condition. 

Of  course  vice  accompanies  crime  among  the  American 
negroes.  The  statistics  of  illegitimacy  in  Washington 
cited  by  Hoffman  in  his  Race  Traits  and  Tendencies  of  the 
American  Negro  show  that  in  fifteen  years  in  Washington, 
from  1879  to  1894,  the  percentage  of  illegitimate  births! 
among  the  whites  was  2.9  per  cent,  while  the  percentage' 
among  the  negroes  was  22.5.  In  other  words,  from  one 
fifth  to  one  fourth  of  all  the  negro  births  in  Washington 
during  that  fifteen-year  period  were  illegitimate.  Statistics 
collected  in  other  cities  show  approximately  the  same  re- 
sult. Of  course  statistics  of  illegitimacy  are  not  exactly  the 
same  thing  as  statistics  of  vice,  but  they,  at  any  rate,  throw 
a  light  upon  the  moral  condition  of  the  negro  in  this  regard, 
and  particularly  show  the  demoralization  of  his  family  life. 

(3)  Negro  Pauperism.  We  have  no  good  statistics 
on  negro  pauperism,  but  such  as  we  have  seem  to  indi- 
cate that  the  state  of  dependence  of  the  negro  is  very 
great.  In  the  city  of  Washington,  where  29  per  cent  of 
the  population  is  made  up  of  negroes,  84  per  cent  of  the 
pauper  burials  are  those  of  negroes;  and  in  Charleston, 
where  53  per  cent  of  the  population  are  negroes,  96 
per  cent  of  the  pauper  burials  are  those  of  negroes.  In 
nearly  all  communities  where  organized  charities  exist  the 
negroes  contribute  to  the  dependent  population  far  out  of 
proportion  to  their  numbers.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  from 
50  to  75  per  cent  of  the  total  negro  population  of  the 
United  States  live  in  poverty  as  distinguished  from  pauper- 
ism, that  is,  live  under  such  conditions  that  physical  and 
mental  efficiency  cannot  be  maintained. 


2  Co  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

(4)  Negro  Vital  Statistics.  The  negro  death  and  birth 
rates  in  the  South  are  both  very  high.  Accurate  statistics 
from  Southern  states,  however,  are  meager,  except  as  to 
negro  death  rates.  In  Alabama  in  a  few  registered  districts 
the  negro  birth  rate  has  been  found  to  be  equal  to  about 
twice  the  death  rate.  On  the  other  hand  it  is  a  curious  fact 
that  in  the  North  the  negro  fails  to  reproduce  sufficiently 
to  keep  up  his  numbers,  consequently  the  negro  population 
in  Northern  states  would  die  out  if  it  were  not  for  immigra- 
tion. In  Pennsylvania  in  1916,  for  example,  there  were  4466 
negro  births  and  5213  negro  deaths.  Statistics  of  prac- 
tically all  Northern  states  confirm  these. 

The  vital  statistics  of  Southern  cities  show  that  the 
negro  death  rate  is  very  much  higher  than  the  white  death 
rate.  In  ten  Southern  cities  in  1890-1894,  Hoffman  found 
the  average  death  rate  for  whites  to  be  20  per  thousand  of 
the  white  population,  and  for  negroes  to  be  32.6  per  thou- 
sand of  the  negro  population.  Thirty-four  cities  in  1906- 
1910  showed  an  annual  average  death  rate  for  the  whites  of 
16.6  and  for  the  negroes  of  29.1.  In  several  cities  the  negro 
death  rate  is  nearly  twice  that  of  the  whites.  When  these 
mortality  statistics  are  analyzed,  moreover,  while  they  show 
that  negro  mortality  at  all  ages  is  greater  than  white  mortal- 
ity, it  is  greatest  among  negro  children  under  fifteen  years  of 
age.  This  is  of  course  largely  because  of  the  ignorant 
manner  in  which  negroes  care  for  their  children,  but  it 
also  indicates  that  natural  selection  is  at  work  among 
the  American  negroes  rapidly  eliminating  the  biologically 
unfit. 

Conclusions  from  Negro  Vital  Statistics.  Three  impor- 
tant conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  the  negro  vital  and 


THE   NEGRO    PROBLEM  261 

population  statistics  which  are  well  worth  emphasizing. 
(i)  The  negro  population  is  not  increasing  so  fast  as  the 
white,  owing  largely  to  its  high  death  rate,  yet  it  is  increas- 
ing, and  there  is  no  indication  as  yet  that  the  negro  popu- 
lation will  decrease.  It  is  probable,  indeed,  that  at  the 
end  of  the  twentieth  century  the  negro  population  of  the 
United  States  will  be  between  twenty  and  thirty  millions. 
The  view  of  some  students  of  the  negro  problem  that  the 
negro  is  destined  to  an  early  extinction  in  this  country 
is  merely  a  speculative  hypothesis,  and  as  yet  is  not  sub- 
stantiated by  any  statistical  facts. 

(2)  While  the  negro  is  destined  to  be  with  us  always,  so 
far  as  we  can  see,  yet  owing  to  the  fact  of  intermixture  of 
races  he  will  be  less  and  less  a  pure  negro,  so  that  at  the 
end  of  the  twentieth  century  the    negroes  in  the  United 
States  will  be   much  nearer    the  white  type    than  at  the 
present  time. 

(3)  The  high  death  rate  among  the  negroes  indicates 
that  a  rapid  process  of  natural  selection  is  going  on  among 
them.     Now,  natural  selection  means  the  elimination  of 
the  unfit,  —  the  dying  out  of   those   who   cannot   adapt 
themselves  to  their  environment.     This  selective  process 
will  tend  toward  the  survival  of  the  more  fit  elements 
among  the  negroes,  and,  therefore,  towards  bringing  the 
negro  up  to  the  standard  of  the  whites.     The  misery  and 
vice  which  we  see  among  the  present  American  negroes 
are  simply  in  a  large  degree  the  expression  of  the  working 
of  a  process  of  natural  selection  among  them.     It  would 
be  preferable,  however,  if  the  white  race  could  by  educa- 
tion and  other  means  substitute  to  some  degree  at  least 
artificial  selection  for  the  miseries  and  brutality  of  the 


262  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

natural  process  of  eliminating  the  unfit.  This  the  superior 
race  should  do  to  protect  itself  as  well  as  to  raise  the 
negro. 

Industrial  Conditions  Among  the  Negroes.  —  In  1903  it 
was  estimated  that  the  total  taxable  wealth  of  the  negroes 
of  the  United  States  in  1900  was  only  about  $300,000,000. 
In  1916,  however,  reliable  estimates  placed  the  taxable 
t  wealth  of  the  negroes  at  $1,000,000,000,  or  about  $100  per 
head.  This  is,  of  course,  a  small  sum  compared  with  the 
$2,400  per  capita  estimated  to  be  owned  by  the  whites. 
However,  the  advance  of  the  negro  in  accumulating  prop- 
erty since  his  emancipation  has  been  steady.  At  the  close 
of  the  Civil  War  the  negro  had  no  property  whatever, 
with  the  exception  of  the  few  freedmen  and  of  those  few 
cases  in  which  old  masters  had  set  up  their  emancipated 
slaves  as  small  farmers.  In  1910,  negroes  owned  218,972 
farms,  valued  at  $346,829,000,  more  than  half  of  which 
were  owned  unencumbered,  while  they  operated  as  tenants 
or  managers  674,398  more  —  an  increase  in  the  total  farms 
owned  and  operated  by  negroes  of  19.6  per  cent  over  1900. 
More  than  half  of  the  negroes  gainfully  employed  are  still 
in  agricultural  occupations.  While  they  have  met  with 
success  in  other  occupations,  negroes  have  been  most 
successful  in  agriculture,  and  where  conditions  are  favorable, 
negro  farmers  have  made  rapid  progress.  This  doubtless 
mainly  accounts  for  the  comparatively  rapid  accumulation 
of  property  made  by  negroes  in  some  Southern  states,  as 
in  Georgia,  where  the  value  of  taxable  property  owned  by 
negroes  increased  between  1900  and  1912  over  140  per  cent, 
or  from  3.5  per  cent  of  the  total  wealth  of  the  state  to 
5  per  cent. 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  263 

It  must  be  said  here,  as  Booker  T.  Washington  urged, 
that  the  negro  problem  is  largely  of  an  industrial  nature. 
It  is  the  unsatisfactoriness  of  the  negro  as  a  worker,  as  a 
producing  agent,  that  gives  rise  largely  to  the  friction 
between  the  two  races.  The  negro  has  not  yet  become 
adapted  to  a  system  of  free  contract  and  is  frequently  un- 
reliable as  a  laborer.  This  breeds  continued  antagonism 
between  the  races.  When  the  negro  becomes  an  efficient 
producer  and  a  property  owner  a  long  step  will  have  been 
taken  toward  the  solution  of  the  negro  problem. 

Educational  Progress  Among  the  Negroes.  —  The  educa- 
tional progress  among  the  negroes  has  been  more  satis- 
factory than  their  industrial  progress.  At  the  time  of  the 
emancipation  90  per  cent  of  all  the  negroes  in  the  United 
States  were  illiterate,  since  nearly  all  the  slave  states 
had  laws  forbidding  the  education  of  negroes.  Since  the 
emancipation  there  has  been  a  rapid  decrease  of  illiteracy. 
In  1880,  70  per  cent  of  the  negroes  above  the  age  of  ten 
years  were  still  reported  as  illiterate;  in  1900,  44.5  per 
cent;  and  in  1910,  30.4  per  cent.  The  number  of  illiterate 
negro  males  of  voting  age  in  the  United  States  in  1910  was 
33-3  Per  cent  °f  the  total  number  of  negro  males  of  that 
age.  The  per  cent  of  illiterate  negro  males  of  voting  age 
ranged  all  the  way  in  former  slave-holding  states  from  48.3 
per  cent  in  Louisiana  to  19  per  cent  in  Missouri,  while  in 
New  York  the  percentage  was  only  5  per  cent. 

In  the  school  year  1915-16,  in  the  eighteen  Southern 
states  there  were  2,019,072  negro  children  enrolled  in  the 
public  schools,  this  number  being  60.8  per  cent  of  the 
negro  population  of  the  school  age  (five  to  eighteen).  The 
number  of  white  children  enrolled  was  6,244,461,  or  83.1 


264  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

per  cent  of  the  white  population  of  school  age.  But  these 
statistics  fail  to  indicate  the  utter  inadequacy  of  many  pro- 
visions for  the  education  of  the  negro  children.  In  many 
districts  of  the  South  the  negro  schools  are  open  only  from 
three  to  five  months  in  a  year,  —  the  equipment  of  the 
school  being  very  inadequate  and  the  teacher  poorly 
trained.  According  to  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Education, 
in  the  Southern  states  in  1916  the  amount  expended  for 
teachers'  salaries  in  public  schools  for  white  children  was 
$10.32  per  child,  while  for  negro  children  it  was  only  $2.89. 
The  Bureau  furnishes  the  following  statistics  of  schools  for 
negroes  in  1916:  public  high  schools  for  negroes  numbered 
167,  with  14,461  students,  3529  being  enrolled  in  courses 
in  manual  training,  1 224  in  agriculture,  and  5797  in  domestic 
economy;  other  state,  federal,  and  private  secondary  and 
higher  schools  numbered  227,  with  2697  college  and  pro- 
fessional students,  19,767  secondary  and  normal  students, 
and  10,812  enrolled  in  industrial  training  courses.  These 
statistics  are  interesting  especially  in  that  they  show  that 
still  in  1916  only  a  little  more  than  one  per  cent  of  the 
negro  children  were  receiving  any  sort  of  industrial  training, 
while  a  still  smaller  per  cent  were  receiving  any  degree  of 
agricultural  education.  The  provisions  for  negro  education 
along  every  line  —  elementary,  secondary,  industrial, 
collegiate,  and  professional  —  were,  according  to  the 
Bureau  of  Education,  still  in  1916  very  deficient. 

Political  Conditions.  —  Not  much  need  be  said  concern- 
ing the  political  condition  of  the  negro.  The  movement 
to  disfranchise  the  negro  by  legal  means  came  in  1890  when 
the  new  Mississippi  constitution  adopted  in  that  year  pro- 
vided that  every  voter  should  be  able  to  read  or  interpret 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  265 

a  clause  in  the  constitution  of  the  United  States.  Since 
then  a  majority  of  the  Southern  states  and  practically  all 
of  the  states  of  the  "Black  Belt"  have  embodied  either  in 
their  constitutions  or  in  their  laws  provisions  for  disfran- 
chising the  negro  voter.  Louisiana  made  the  provision  that 
a  person  must  be  able  to  read  and  write  or  be  a  lineal  de- 
scendant of  some  person  who  voted  prior  to  1860.  This  is 
the  famous  "Grandfather  Clause,"  which  proved  popular 
in  a  number  of  Southern  states.  These  laws  and  con- 
stitutional provisions  were  evidently  designed  to  disfranchise 
the  negro  voter.  The  Federal  Supreme  Court  in  1915,  how- 
ever, declared  "grandfather  laws"  invalid,  reaffirming  the 
validity  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  to  the  Federal  Con- 
stitution. 

Regarding  all  of  this  legislation  it  may  be  said  that  it 
has  had  perhaps  both  good  and  bad  effects.  In  so  far  as  it 
has  tended  to  eliminate  the  negro  from  politics  this  has 
been  a  good  effect,  but  it  has  oftentimes  rather  succeeded 
in  keeping  the  negro  question  in  politics;  and  the  evident 
injustice  and  inequality  of  some  of  the  laws  must,  it  would 
seem,  react  to  lower  the  whole  tone  of  political  morality 
in  the  South.  Again,  the  very  provision  of  these  laws  to 
insure  the  disfranchisement  of  the  illiterate  negro  has  tended 
in  some  instances,  at  least,  to  discourage  negro  education, 
because  the  promoters  of  these  laws  in  most  cases  did  not 
aim  to  exclude  simply  the  illiterate  negro  vote,  but  prac- 
tically the  entire  negro  vote.  It  is  evident  that  a  party 
designing  to  disfranchise  the  negro  through  this  means 
would  not  be  very  zealous  for  the  negro's  education. 

Reconstruction   of   our  Policy   Toward   the   Negro.— 
Many  solutions  have  been  proposed  for  the  negro  problem. 


266  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

Among  them  are  (i)  admission  at  once  of  the  negroes  to 
full  social  equality  with  the  whites;  (2)  popular  education 
of  the  negroes  along  literary  and  intellectual  lines;  (3) 
deportation  to  Africa  or  to  South  America;  (4)  colonization 
in  some  state  or  in  territory  adjacent  to  the  United  States ; 
(5)  extinction  through  natural  selection.  It  must  be  said 
at  once  that  all  of  these  solutions  are  either  impossible 
or  fatuous.  The  negro  is  destined  to  remain  a  part  of  our 
nation.  This  is  the  first  perception  upon  which  a  sound 
policy  toward  the  negro  must  be  based.  Accordingly,  any 
sane  solution  of  the  negro  problem  must  look  toward  the 
harmonious  adjustment  of  the  relations  of  the  two  races 
within  the  nation.  The  proposed  solutions  just  mentioned 
fail  to  accomplish  this  result,  and  must  be  discarded  in 
favor  of  a  more  rational  and  scientific  policy. 

The  second  perception  necessary  for  a  sound  policy 
toward  the  negro  is  that  the  so-called  negro  problem  is  es- 
sentially the  same  as  the  Indian  problem  or  the  problem 
of  any  backward  people  or  race.  It  is  the  problem  of  how 
a  relatively  large  mass  of  people,  inferior  in  culture  and 
possibly  also  inferior  in  nature,  can  be  adjusted  to  the 
civilization  of  a  people  much  their  superior  in  culture;; 
how  the  socially  and  industrially  inefficient  "nature  man'* 
can  be  made  over  into  the  socially  and  industrially  efficient 
civilized  man.  Without  any  injustice  to  the  negro  we  may 
say  roughly  that  the  negro  masses  of  this  country  are  still 
essentially  an  uncultivated  or  "nature"  people,  though 
surrounded  by  civilization.  Slavery  failed  to  render  the 
mass  of  negroes  capable  of  participating  fully  in  our  civiliza- 
tion, and  all  that  has  been  done  for  the  negro  since  eman- 
cipation has  likewise  relatively  failed.  Accordingly  the 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  267 

problem  still  remains  of  how  we  can  get  the  mass  of  negroes 
to  assimilate  fully  the  social  standards,  ideals,  and  values 
of  our  civilization.  The  problem  is  not  greatly  different 
from  what  it  would  be  if  the  present  American  negroes 
were  descendents  of  savage  aborigines  that  had  peopled 
this  country  before  the  white  man  came.  We  must  rind  a 
way  of  making  them  a  harmonious  and  helpful  element  in 
our  national  household;  or,  as  we  say  of  the  immigrant, 
of  Americanizing  them. 

Mr.  Booker  T.  Washington  said  that  the  negro  is  bound 
to  become  adjusted  to  our  civilization  because  he  is  sur- 
rounded by  the  white  man's  civilization  on  every  hand. 
This  optimistic  view,  which  seems  to  dismiss  the  negro 
problem  as  requiring  no  solution,  is,  however,  not  well 
supported  by  many  facts,  as  we  have  just  seen.  Everywhere 
we  have  evidence  that  the  negro  when  left  to  himself  reverts 
to  a  condition  approximating  his  African  barbarism,  and 
the  statistics  of  increasing  vice  and  crime  which  we  have 
just  given  show  quite  conclusively  that  the  negro  is  not 
becoming  adjusted  to  the  white  man's  civilization  in  many 
cases  in  spite  of  considerable  efforts  which  are  being  put 
forth  in  his  behalf.  While  the  writer  is  very  far  from  taking 
a  pessimistic  view  of  this  or  any  other  social  problem,  he 
believes  that  most  of  the  solutions  that  have  thus  far  been 
tried  have  relatively  failed,  and  that  more  radical  methods 
need  to  be  adopted  if  the  negro  is  to  become  a  useful  social 
and  industrial  element  in  our  society. 

Undoubtedly  the  primary  adjustment  to  be  made  by  any 
backward  people  is  the  adjustment  on  the  economic  side. 
Only  when  the  negro  becomes  adjusted  to  the  economic 
side  of  his  life  will  there  be  a  solid  foundation  for  the  develop- 


268  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

ment  of  something  higher.  People  must  be  taught  how 
to  be  efficient,  self-sustaining,  productive  members  of  so- 
ciety economically  before  they  can  be  taught  to  be  good 
citizens.  The  American  negro  in  other  words  must  be 
taught  to  be  "good  for  something"  as  well  as  to  be  good. 
The  failure  of  common-school  education  with  the  negro 
has  been  largely  for  the  reason  that  it  has  failed  to  help 
him  in  any  efficient  way  to  adjust  himself  industrially. 
Oftentimes  indeed  it  has  had  the  contrary  effect,  and  the 
slightly  educated  negro  has  been  the  one  who  has  been 
least  valuable  as  a  producer.  The  common-school  edu- 
cation has  not  been  such  a  failure  with  the  white  child, 
for  the  reason  that  the  white  child  has  been  taught  industry 
and  morality  at  home,  but  these  the  negro  frequently  fails 
to  get  in  his  home  life.  Moreover,  the  common-school 
education  of  the  white  child  has  usually  been  simply  the 
foundation  upon  which  after  school  days  he,  as  a  citizen, 
has  built  up  a  wider  culture.  But  the  negro,  on  account 
of  his  environment,  if  not  naturally,  has  proved  incapable 
of  going  on  with  his  education  and  building  on  it  after 
getting  out  of  school.  Moreover,  as  we  have  already  noted, 
under  the  present  complex  conditions  of  our  social  life  the 
common  school  is  no  longer  an  efficient  socializing  agent, 
even  for  the  white  children.  The  present  school  system  is  a 
failure,  not  only  for  the  negro  race,  but  also,  though  not 
in  the  same  degree,  for  the  white  race.  Popular  educa- 
tion on  the  old  lines  can  never  do  very  much  to  solve  the 
negro  problem. 

This  does  not  lead,  however,  to  the  conclusion  that  all 
training  and  education  for  the  negro  race  is  foredoomed 
to  failure.  On  the  contrary  all  the  experiments  of  mission- 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  269 

aries  in  dealing  with  uncivilized  races  has  led  to  the  con- 
clusion that  an  all-round  education  in  which  industrial 
and  moral  training  are  made  prominent  can  relatively  ad- 
just to  our  civilization  even  the  most  backward  of  human 
races.  Wherever  the  missionaries  have  introduced  indus- 
trial education  and  adjusted  their  converts  to  what  is  per- 
haps the  fundamental  side  of  our  civilization,  the  economic, 
1  they  have  met  with  the  largest  degree  of  success.  This 
success  of  missionary  endeavors  along  this  line  has  led  to 
the  establishment  of  similar  industrial  training  schools  for 
the  negro  in  this  country,  and  it  may  be  said  regarding  such 
schools  for  the  negro  as  Hampton  and  Tuskegee  that  they 
have  proved  an  even  more  unqualified  success  than  their 
predecessors  originated  by  the  missionaries.  But  these 
schools  are  as  yet  very  far  from  solving  the  negro  problem 
in  this  country,  for  the  reason,  as  we  have  already  seen,  that 
they  affect  such  a  small  proportion  of  the  negro  population. 
Only  about  one  per  cent  of  negro  children  at  the  present 
time  are  probably  receiving  industrial  training. 

It  should  be  emphasized  that  industrial  training  in  no 
way  precludes  an  all-round  education.  It  is  not  meant  that 
industrial  education  shall  replace  all  other  forms  of  edu- 
cation, but  rather  that  it  shall  be  added  to  ordinary  edu- 
cation in  order  to  enrich  the  educational  process;  and  it 
should  be  added  also  that  industrial  training,  while  of 
itself  having  a  strong  uplifting  moral  influence,  is  not 
sufficient  to  socialize  without  explicit  teaching  of  social 
ideals  and  standards.  Schools  that  attempted  to  give  such 
an  all-round  education  to  negro  children  would,  of  course, 
in  no  way  cut  off  the  possibility  of  higher  and  professional 
education  for  the  small  number  who  are  especially  fitted 


270  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

to  become  leaders,  and  who  should  be  encouraged  to  go  on 
with  advanced  studies. 

Positive  Constructive  Measures.  If  we  accept  the  view 
that  what  the  American  negro  needs  to  adjust  him  to  our 
civilization  is  an  all-round,  socialized  education  which  will 
emphasize  industrial  training,  especially  training  for  those 
agricultural  and  other  rural  occupations  in  which  the  negro 
masses  find  their  best  success,  let  us  note  the  concrete 
measures  which  are  necessary  to  realize  this  program. 

(i)  There  must  be  adequately  equipped  common  and 
higher  schools  to  give  such  training.  Such  schools  equipped 
for  industrial  training  —  that  is,  for  training  in  agriculture 
and  mechanical  arts  for  the  boys  and  in  household  arts 
for  the  girls  —  will  doubtless  cost  a  good  deal  of  money. 
While  the  investment  of  money  in  such  schools  will  un- 
doubtedly repay  many  fold  in  the  increased  productive 
capacity  of  the  negro  population,  and  so  in  the  increased 
productive  power  of  the  whole  nation,  yet  the  Southern 
states  should  not  be  asked  to  carry  this  burden  alone. 
They  should  not,  because  the  condition  of  the  negro  is  a 
national,  and  not  a  local,  responsibility.  Properly  equipped 
schools  for  the  education  of  the  negro  can  scarcely  be 
secured  without  federal  aid.  This  means  federal  subsidies 
for  education,  and  ultimately,  perhaps,  a  national  system 
of  education.  But  as  this  is  needed  also  for  the  whites, 
especially  for  the  large  mass  of  illiterate  whites  in  the 
South,  there  can  be  little  objection  to  such  a  policy.  The 
War  should  have  taught  us  not  to  be  niggardly  in  spending 
money  on  socially  necessary  projects.  The  cost  of  a  dozen 
modern  battleships  would  furnish  ample  funds  for  the 
industrial  education  of  the  negro  for  a  decade. 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  271 

(2)  There  must  be  secured  properly  trained  teachers  to 
give  such  education.  A  sufficient  number  of  such  teachers 
cannot  at  present  be  found  among  the  negroes.  While 
negro  teachers  should  be  preferred  whenever  they  are 
competent,  and  should  be  trained  as  rapidly  as  possible, 
yet  white  teachers  must  be  enlisted  for  the  training  of  the 
negro  if  any  adequate  educational  policy  is  to  be  entered 
upon.  There  are  the  gravest  reasons,  indeed,  why  white 
teachers  should  be  more  extensively  employed  in  negro 
schools  if  education  of  the  negro  is  to  be  a  success.  The 
mass  of  negro  teachers  now  employed  are  far  below  even 
the  low  standards  set  for  teachers  of  white  schools.  They 
are  unqualified  for  the  task  of  civilizing  and  socializing 
their  race.  Under  such  drcumstances  any  scheme  of 
education  for  the  negro  is  bound  to  be  a  failure;  for  it  is 
well  recognized  that  the  vital  element  in  the  success  of 
any  scheme  of  education  is  the  teacher.  "Sound  polio,-,'7 
says  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Education,  "requires  white 
management  and  white  teachers  to  have  some  part  in  the 
education  of  the  race.'r 

If,  therefore,  industrial  and  social  training  is  to  be  gener- 
ally introduced  into  the  schools  for  negroes  —  if  negro 
education  is  to  aim  at  the  social  adjustment  of  the  negro  — 
then  a  way  must  be  found  of  reintroducing  white  teachers 
in  some  measure  into  negro  schools.  Directly  after  the 
Civil  War  Southern  white  teachers  were  extensively  em- 
ployed in  negro  schools;  but  as  a  result  of  increasing  race 
friction  and  of  the  negroes  foolishly  demanding  the  posi- 
tions for  themselves,  white  teachers  have  come  gradually 
to  be  excluded  from  negro  schools.  It  would  seem,  how- 
ever, that  recognition  on  the  part  of  both  races  of  the 


272  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

exigencies  of  the  educational  situation  and  of  the  need  of 
an  attitude  of  mutual  service  might  easily  remove  the 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  securing  an  enlarged  cooperation 
of  white  teachers  in  negro  education.  Unless,  indeed, 
opportunities  are  maintained  for  working  together  in  the 
higher  tasks  of  civilization,  such  as  education,  the  social 
separation  of  the  two  races  must  finally  result  in  disaster  to 
both. 

(3)  This  brings  us  to  the  third  thing  which  is  the  most 
necessary  of  all  for  the  solution  of  the  negro  problem,  and 
that  is  intelligent  cooperation  by  the  members  of  both 
races,  especially  their  leaders.  Without  such  cooperation 
it  is  idle  to  think  that  properly  equipped  schools  and  prop- 
erly trained  teachers  for  the  education  of  the  negro  can 
be  obtained,  or  that  the  new  education  for  the  negro  can 
be  successfully  inaugurated.  Most  of  the  negroes,  often 
misled  by  unwise  leaders,  still  prefer  the  education  of  the 
older  type,  failing  to  see  that  industrial  training  coupled 
with  all-round  education  offers  the  one  secure  pathway 
of  social  advance  for  their  race.  The  masses  of  unenlight- 
ened Southern  white  people,  on  the  other  hand,  also  do 
not  wish  the  new  education  for  the  negro,  because  they 
believe  that  it  will  give  him  an  advantage.  For  this  reason 
many  would  probably  oppose  federal  aid  in  the  education 
of  the  negro.  They  fail  to  see  that  anything  that  is  done 
for  a  depressed  element  in  society  will  ultimately  benefit 
all  society.  In  particular,  they  fail  to  see  that  the  one 
great  impediment  to  the  economic  and  cultural  develop- 
ment and  enrichment  of  the  South  is  its  untrained  negro 
population.  Says  the  Southern  University  Race  Com- 
mission: "The  inadequate  provision  for  the  education  of 


THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM  273 

the  negro  is  more  than  an  injustice  to  him;  it  is  an  in- 
jury to  the  white  man.  The  South  can  not  realize  its 
destiny  if  one  third  of  its  population  is  undeveloped  and 
inefficient." 

But  it  is  the  white  man  who  must  lead  the  way  in  this 
matter.  He  must  persuade  the  negro  that  rightly  directed 
education  is  the  way  out,  and  extend  to  the  negro  all 
needed  help  and  good  will.  The  question,  therefore, 
ultimately  becomes  a  question  of  educating  the  whites 
and  of  forming  a  proper  public  opinion  regarding  the  edu- 
cation of  the  negro.  When  the  leaders  of  both  races  once 
see  the  need  of  working  together  in  harmony  and  in  good 
will,  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  securing  proper  education 
for  the  negro  will  be  easily  surmounted.  While,  therefore, 
the  negro  problem  is  from  one  point  of  view  largely  a 
question  of  the  industrial  training  and  adjustment  of  the 
negro,  from  another  point  of  view  it  is  a  moral  question 
which  can  be  solved  only  when  the  socially  superior  race 
takes  the  right  attitude  toward  the  socially  inferior  race  — 
namely,  the  attitude  of  service. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

HART,  The  Southern  South,  Chap.  XXVTL 

POPENOE  and  JOHNSON,  Applied  Eugenics,  Chap.  XIV. 

REUTER,  The  Mulatto  in  the  United  States,  Chaps.  IV-XII. 

for  more  extended  reading: 

Atlanta  University  Publications. 

ARCHER,  Through  Afro-America. 

BRAWLEY,  A  Short  History  of  the  American  Negro. 

DOWD,  The  Negro  Races. 

Du  Bois,  The  Negro. 

Du  Bois,  The  Souls  of  Black  Folk. 


274  THE  NEGRO  PROBLEM 

HOFFMAN,  Race  Traits  and  Tendencies  of  the  American  Negrff. 
JOHNSTON,  The  Negro  in  the  New  World. 
MERRIAM,  The  Negro  and  the  Nation. 
MILLER,  Race  Adjustment. 
MURPHY,  The  Basis  of  Ascendancy. 
PAGE,  The  Negro:  The  Southerner's  Problem. 
SMITH,  The  Color  Line. 

STONE,  Studies  in  the  American  Race  Problem. 
WASHINGTON,  The  Future  of  the  American  Negro. 
WASHINGTON,  The  Story  of  the  Negro. 

Negro  Education,  Bulletin  No.  38  of  the  Bureau  of  Education. 
The  Negro  Population  in  the  United  States,  1790-1915,  Bureau  of  the 
Census. 


CHAPTER  XH 

THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 

/THE  city  is,  from  one  point  of  view,  the  peculiar  problem 
01  our  civilization.  The  urbanization  of  population  in  the 
typical  nations  of  the  modern  world  has  greatly  intensified 
all  social  problems.  At  the  same  time  the  growth  of  the  city 
has  brought  about  conditions  of  living  which  are  relatively 
new  to  the  race.  Whether  humanity  can  adapt  itself  to- 
the  new  biological  and  psychological  conditions  which  city 
life  presents  remains  to  be  demonstrated.  For  this  reason 
it  has  been  said  that  "the  growth  of  large  cities  constitutes, 
perhaps,  the  greatest  of  all  the  problems  of  modern  civiliza- 
tion." ,/ 

The'  Origin  and  Development  of  the  City.  —  The  first 
cities  were  military  strongholds  and  places  of  worship. 
Comparatively  few  of  the  total  population  of  a  country 
lived  within  their  walls,  except  in  times  of  danger  from' 
enemies.  From  being  military  and  religious  centers,  cities 
became,  also,  markets  or  commercial  centers.  Such  were 
the  walled  towns  of  the  Middle  Ages.  The  typical  cities 
of  western  Europe  remained  surrounded  by  high  walls 
down  to  the  modern  era,  while  within  their  walls  dwelt 
a  comparatively  dense  population,  living  mainly  by  trade 
and  commerce.  It  was  not  until  the  industrial  revolution, 

275 


.  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY 

early  in  the  nineteenth  century,  had  transformed  industry 
and  transportation,  that  we  find  the  modern  type  of  city, 
which  is  an  industrial  center,  emerging. 

Thus,  while  the  city  is  as  old  as  civilization  itself,  the 
present  problem  of  the  city  is  comparatively  new.  No 
great  proportion  of  the  population  of  any  country  previous 
to  the  nineteenth  century  lived  in  cities,  for  the  people 
got  their  living  mainly  through  occupations  carried  on  in 
country  districts.  The  modern  city,  then,  is  a  product 
of  modern  industrial  development,  not  of  the  mere  in- 
crease of  numbers.  So  true  is  this,  that  in  a  very  popu- 
lous country  like  India,  which  has  not  yet  been  greatly 
affected  by  modern  industrial  methods,  we  still  find  over 
ninety  per  cent  of  the  population  living  under  rural  con- 
ditions. 

In  all  probability  this  was  also  true  of  the  people  living  in 
classic  antiquity.  While  we  know  that  there  was  a  con- 
siderable development  of  cities  in  the  later  phases  of  Greco- 
Roman  civilization,  probably  the  proportion  of  the  total 
population  of  the  Roman  Empire  living  in  cities  was  com- 
paratively small.  Moreover,  the  populations  of  ancient 
cities  have  often  been  exaggerated.  Probably  at  the  height 
of  its  power,  the  population  of  Athens  did  not  exceed 
100,000;  Carthage,  700,000;  Rome,  500,000;  Alexandria, 
500,000;  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  1,000,000.  All  the  great 
cities  of  the  ancient  world  practically  disappeared  with  the 
fall  of  Rome.  After  Rome's  fall,  Constantinople  was  the 
only  large  city  with  over  100,000  population  in  all  Europe 
for  centuries.  Down  to  1600  A.D.,  indeed,  there  were  only 
fourteen  cities  in  all  Europe  with  a  population  of  over 
100,000;  and  even  in  1800,  at  the  beginning  of  the  nine- 


THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE   CITY  277 

teenth  century,  there  were  only  twenty-two  such  cities. 
But  at  the  end  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  1900,  there  were 
one  hundred  and  thirty-six  such  cities  in  Europe,  repre- 
senting twelve  per  cent  of  the  entire  population,  while  in 
1910  there  were  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty-eight 
such  cities.  Moreover,  while  in  1800  less  than  three  per 
cent  of  the  total  population  of  Europe  lived  in  cities,  in 

1900  the  total  urban  population  was  twenty-five  per  cent. 
Again,  all  of  the  great  European  capitals  developed  their 
present  enormous    population    almost   wholly  within  the 
nineteenth  century.     Thus,  the  population  of  London  in 
1800  was  864,000,  while  in  1901  it  had  reached  4,536,000,. 
or  in  the    total    area  policed,  6,581,000;  the  population 
of  Paris  in  1800  was  547,000,  in  1901    it  was  2,714,000; 
the  population  of   Berlin  in   1800  was  only  172,000,  in 

1901  it  was  1,888,000;  the  population  of  Vienna  in  1800 
was  232,000,  in  1901  it  was  1,674,000.     These  figures  are 
cited  to  show  that  from  four  fifths  to  nine  tenths  of  the 
growth  of  the  greatest  cities  of  the  world  took  place  within 
the  nineteenth  century. 

The  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  United  States.  —  According 
to  the  terminology  of  the  United  States  Census  Bureau, 
a  place  with  a  population  of  2500  or  over  is  counted  as 
urban.  Places  of  from  2500  to  25,000  are  called  small 
cities;  places  from  25,000  to  100,000  medium-sized  cities; 
and  places  over  100,000  large  or  great  cities.  It  will  be  well 
to  bear  these  distinctions  in  mind  in  discussing  the  problem 
of  the  city,  because  the  problem  of  city  life  becomes  much 
more  intense  when  the  population  of  a  place  exceeds  100,000. 
It  is  mainly  the  problem  of  the  great  city  which  we  shall 
discuss  in  this  chapter.  For  purposes  of  comparison,  we 


THE   PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY 

shall  also  exclude,  temporarily,  from  the  category  of  cities, 
places  between  2500  and  10,000  in  population. 

In  1800  there  were  only  five  cities  in  the  United  States 
•of  more  than  10,000  population.  These  cities  contained  a 
fraction  less  than  four  per  cent  of  the  total  population.  In 
1900,  on  the  other  hand,  there  were  447  cities  in  the  United 
States  with  a  population  of  over  10,000,  and  these  cities 
contained  nearly  32  per  cent  of  the  total  population, 
while  nearly  20  per  cent  lived  in  38  great  cities  of  over 
100,000  population.  By  1910  the  number  of  cities  in  the 
United  States  of  more  than  10,000  population  had  increased 
to  603,  and  these  cities  contained  over  37  per  cent  of  the  total 
population,  while  over  22  per  cent  lived  in  50  cities  of  more 
than  100,000  population  each. 

Moreover,  during  the  whole  of  the  nineteenth  century 
the  cities  of  the  United  States  grew  much  more  rapidly 
than  its  rural  population,  and  this  was  especially  true  in  the 
closing  decades.  From  1900  to  1910  the  urban  population 
of  the  United  States  increased  from  31,609,000  to  42,623,000, 
or  34.8  per  cent,  while  the  "  rural  population,"  including 
in  that  phrase,  not  only  the  population  living  in  the  open 
country,  but  also  in  all  towns  under  2500  inhabitants, 
increased  from  44,384,000  only  to  49,348,000,  or  11.2  per 
cent.  If,  however,  we  take  only  the  population  living  in 
the  open  country,  excluding  all  incorporated  places,  we 
find  that  the  rural  population  between  1900  and  1910  in- 
creased only  5.8  per  cent,  while  the  urban  population  gained 
34.8  per  cent.  In  other  words,  between  1900  and  1910 
the  urban  and  semiurban  population  of  the  United  States 
gained  six  times  as  fast  as  the  strictly  rural  population. 
This  is  a  more  rapid  increase  in  urban  population,  in  com- 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE   CITY  279 

parison  to  strictly  rural  population,  than  has  taken  place 
in  any  previous  decade.  Between  1900  and  1910  the  cities 
which  grew  the  fastest  in  the  United  States  were  those 
between  50,000  and  250,000  population. 

Distribution  of  the  Urban  Population  of  the  United  States. 
If  the  urban  population  of  the  United  States  were  distrib- 
uted relatively  uniformly  among  the  several  states,  the 
problem  of  the  city  would  be  very  different  from  what  it  is ; 
but  the  urban  population  is  largely  concentrated  in  a  few 
states.  Over  45  per  cent  of  the  urban  population  is  found  in 
the  New  England  and  Middle  Atlantic  states ;  and  if  we  add 
the  East  North  Central  states,  over  two  thirds  of  the  urban 
population  is  in  these  three  divisions.  The  five  states  of 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Massachusetts,  Illinois,  and  Ohio 
contain  also  one  half  of  the  urban  population  of  the  whole 
country.  If  we  add  to  these  five  states,  New  Jersey,  Mich- 
igan, and  Missouri,  then  these  eight  states  contain  nearly 
two  thirds  of  the  urban  population  of  the  United  States. 

The  states  with  over  half  their  population  urban  in  1910 
were  Rhode  Island,  96.7  per  cent;  Massachusetts,  92.8  per 
cent ;  Connecticut,  89.7  per  cent ;  New  York,  78.8  per  cent ; 
New  Jersey,  75.2  per  cent ;  California,  61.8  per  cent ;  Illinois, 
61.7  per  cent;  Pennsylvania,  60.4  per  cent;  New  Hamp- 
shire,  59.2  per  cent;  Ohio,  55.9  per  cent;  Washington,  53 
per  cent;  Maine,  51.4  percent;  Maryland,  50.8  percent; 
Colorado,  50.4  per  cent. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  these  states  with  a  large  urban 
population  are  the  great  manufacturing  states  of  the  Union. 
The  proportion  of  urban  to  rural  population  is,  indeed, 
directly  proportionate  to  the  industrialization  of  the  popu- 
lation. It  will  also  be  noticed  that  only  one  of  these  states 


28o  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 

with  a  population  more  than  one  half  urban  is  even  nomi- 
nally southern,  namely,  Maryland.  This  is  due  to  the  fact 
that  heretofore  the  South  has  been  largely  agricultural ; 
consequently  only  a  few  of  the  great  cities  of  the  country  are 
found  within  its  borders,  though  within  the  past  decade 
several  Southern  states  have  rapidly  increased  their  urban 
populate 

ere  are  but  few  countries  in  Europe  that  come  up  with 
the  most  urban  of  our  American  states.     The  following 
European  countries  had  in  1910  a  very  large  per  cent 
of  urban  population:  England  and  Wales,  78  yer  cent; 
Scotland,  75.4  per  cent;  Germany,  60  per  cent;  Saxony, 
60  per  cent;  France,  44  per  cent;  Holland,  40.5  per  cent. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  European  Russia  in  1910  only  13 
per  cent  of  the  population  was  urban.     It  will  be  noted 
that  the  most  urban  of  our  states,  Rhode  Island,  Massa- 
chusetts, and  New  York,  now  surpass  all  European  coun- 
tries in  the  percentage  of  population  living  in  cities.     This 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  these  states  have  specialized  in 
manufacturing  industry  more  than  any  European  country, 
with  the  exception  of  England  and  Wales. 

efore  leaving  the  statistics  of  the  growth  of  cities,  it 
may  be  worth  our  while  to  note  that  there  are  developing  in 
this  country  certain  great  urban  centers  which  promise  to 
show,  even  in  the  near  future,  the  most  extensive  urban- 
ization of  population  known  to  the  world ;  for  example,  a 
line  of  cities  and  suburban  communities  is  now  developing 
which  will  in  the  near  future  connect  New  York  and  Bos- 
ton on  the  one  hand  and  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and 
Washington  on  the  other  hand.  Thus  in  a  few  years, 
stretching  from  Washington  to  Boston,  a  distance  of  five 


W1U 

/  '* 

/  may 

»  t-Vi?o 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY    -  281 

hundred  miles,  there  promises  to  be  a  continuous  chain  of 
urban  communities  with  practically  no  rural  districts  be- 
tween them.  In  a  sense,  this  will  constitute  one  great  city 
with  a  population  of  twenty  millions  or  upwards.  Other 
urban  centers,  though  not  so  extensive,  are  also  developing 
at  other  points  in  the  United  States.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
at  the  end  of  the  twentieth  century  this  country  will  have 
at  least  a  dozen  cities  with  a  population  of  over  one  mil- 
lion. Moreover,  so  far  as  we  can  see  at  the  present  time, 
there  is  no  end  in  the  near  future  to  this  growth  of  the 
urbanization  of  our  populationu  for  the  causes  of  this  great 
growth  of  cities  seem  inherenr  in  our  civilization. 
( The  Rural  Problem.  -*•  The  reflex  of  the  city  problem  is 
the  rural  problem.  All  this  growth  in  our  urban  popula- 
tion has  meant,  to  a  certain  extent,  a  depletion  in  our  coun- 
try districts  of  both  population  and  social  life.  In  1880  the 
rural  population  of  the  United  States  was  still  70.5  per  cent ; 
while  in  1910  it  was  only  53.7  per  cent,  with  about  10  per 
cent  of  that  number  not  strictly  rural.  Moreover,  as  we 
have  seen,  for  a  number  of  decades  the  rural  population 
has  been  increasing  very  slowly,  while  the  urban  population 
has  been  increasing  very  rapidly.  In  many  communities 
and  states,  indeed,  there  has  been  a  positive  decrease  in  the 
rural  population.  Thus,  between  1900  and  1910,  while 
every  state  in  the  Union  increased  its  urban  population 
from  10  to  250  per  cent,  all  the  more  populous  states  of  the 
country  increased  their  rural  population  less  than  10  per 
cent,  and  six  states,  including  four  great  agricultural  states 
in  the  Central  West,  showed  an  absolute  decrease  in  their 
rural  population.  These  six  states  were  New  Hampshire, 
Vermont,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Missouri. 


282  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 

Along  with  the  removal  of  the  older  and  more1  substantial 
families  in  country  communities  to  the  cities  has  gorT5~an 
increase  in  the  number  of  rented  farms,  until  the  number 
of  farms  worked  by  tenants  in  1910  was  37  per  cent  of  the 
total.  The  number  of  tenant  farmers  has  been  increasing 
rapidly  of  recent  years.  But  only  indirectly  is  the  rural 
problem  economic.  The  country  districts  have  suffered1) 
most  from  a  loss  of  social  leadership  along  all  lines.  While 
it  is  not  true,  save  in  a  few  communities,  that  the  move- 
ment to  the  cities  has  left  behind  in  the  country  districts 
only  unambitious  and  even  degenerate  elements,  still  prac- 
tically all  rural  communities  have  suffered  much  from 
the  movement  to  the  cities  through  the  loss  of  many  of 
their  strongest  and  most  ambitious  young  men  and 
women.  As  a  consequence,  the  country  church,  the  coun- 
try school,  and  practically  all  other  rural  institutions 
have  suffered. 

This  is  the  more  significant  for  our  civilization  sociologi- 
cally because  it  must  be  emphasized  that  the  city  is  still 
an  experiment  in  human  living.  Hitherto,  civilization 
seems  to  have  derived  a  very  large  proportion  of  its  leaders, 
of  its  most  capable  men  and  women,  from  the  country 
districts.  It  is  a  question  whether,  with  the  increased 
urbanization  of  our  population  and  the  consequent  social 
impoverishment  of  the  country  districts,  the  country  can 
still  continue  to  furnish  the  cities  the  able  leaders  which  it 
has  given  in  the  past.)}' 

Causes  of  the  Growth  of  Great  Cities.  —  There  may  be 
distinguished  two  classes  of  causes  of  the  growth  of  cities: 
(i)  general  or  social  causes,  and  (2)  minor  or  individual 
causes.  It  is  the  social  causes,  the  causes  inherent  in 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE   CITY  283 

our  civilization,  which  are  of  particular  interest  to  us. 
Among  these  social  causes  we  shall  place : 

i.  The  Diminishing  Importance  of  Agriculture  in  the 
Life  of  Man.  Once  agriculture  was  the  all-embracing 
occupation^  Practically  all  goods  were  produced  upon 
the  farm.  I  Nowr—htTwever,  man's  wants  have  so  greatly 
increased  that  the  primitive  industries  of  the  farm  can 
no  longer  satisfy  these  wants,  and  in  order  to  satisfy  them 
men  have  developed  large  manufacturing  industries. 
Moreover,  fewer  men  are  needed  on  the  farms  to  produce 
the  same  amount  of  raw  material  as  was  produced  formerly 
by  the  labor  of  many.  This  has  come  about  mostly 
through  labor-saving  machines.  The  invention  and  appli- 
cation of  labor-saving  machines  to  the  industries  of  the 
farm  has.  made  it  possible  to  dispense  with  a  great  number 
of  menj)  It  is  estimated  that  fifty  men  with  modern 
farm  machinery  can  do  the  work  of  five  hundred  European 
peasants  without  such  machinery.  Consequently,  the  four 
hundred  and  fifty  who  have  been  displaced  by  farm  ma- 
chinery must  find  other  work,  and  they  find  it  mainly  in 
manufacturing  industries.  Again,  the  scientific  and  capi- 
talistic agriculture  of  the  present  has  much  the  same  effect 
as  labor-saving  machines.  They  have  greatly  increased 
agricultural  production  and  at  the  same  time  lessened  the 
amount  of  labor.  The  opening  up  also  of  new  and  fertile 
regions  which  were  very  productive  in  the  nineteenth  cen- 
Uiry  had  a  similar  effect. 

f  Every  improvement  in  agricultural  industry,  instead 
of  keeping  men  on  the  farm,  has  tended  to  drive  them  from 
it.  Scientific  agriculture  carried  on  with  modern  machinery 
necessarily  lessens  the  need  of  employing  a  great  proper- 


284  THE   PROBLEM  OF  THE   CITY 

tion  of  the  population  to  produce  the  foodstuff  and  other 
raw  materials  which  the  world  needs.  Hence  it  has 
tended  to  free  men  from  the  soil  and  to  make  it  possible 
for  a  larger  and  larger  number  to  go  to  the  city.  There- 
fore the  relatively  diminishing  importance  of  agriculture 
has  been  one  of  the  prime  causes  of  the  growth  of  the  cities 
in  the  nineteenth  century;  and  so  far  as  we  can  see  this 
cause  will  continue  to  operate  for  some  time  to  come. 

2.  The  Growth  and  Centralization  of  Manufacturing  In- 
dustries. This  is  perhaps  the  most  vital  cause  of  the  growth 
of  cities.  The  great  city,  as  we  have  already  said,  is  very 
largely  the  product  of  modern  industrialism.  Improved 
machinery,  improved  transportation,  and  enlarged  markets, 
together  with  the  increased  wants  of  men,  not  only  have 
made  possible  a  great  growth  of  manufacturing  industries, 
but  also  these  same  factors  have  tended  to  centralize  man- 
ufacturing industries  in  the  cities.  Let  us  note  briefly  why 
it  is  that  manufacturing  industries  are  grouped  together  in 
great  cities  rather  than  scattered  throughout  the  rural  com- 
munities. In  centralizing  manufacturing  plants  in  cities, 
certain  industrial  economies  are  secured,  such  as :  (i)  econ- 
omy in  motor  power,  whether  it  be  water  or  coal ;  (2)  econ- 
omy in  machinery  —  it  is  not  necessary  to  duplicate  ma- 
chines; (3)  economy  in  wages  —  one  superintendent,  for 
example,  can  oversee  a  large  plant;  (4)  utilization  of  by- 
products —  when  many  factories  are  grouped  together,  by- 
products, which  are  sometimes  more  valuable  than  the  main 
products,  can  be  better  utilized.  (5)  There  is  economy 
in  buying  raw  material  and  in  selling  finished  products 
when  many  factories  are  grouped  together.  For  all  these 
reasons,  along  with  the  further  reason  that  those  who  labor 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY  285 

in  factories  must  live  close  to  them,  manufacturing  has  been 
a  prime  cause  of  the  modern  city,  and,  so  far  as  we  can  see, 
will  continue  further  to  urbanize  our  population  in  the  future. 

3.  The  Increase  of  Trade  and  Commerce.  Between 
different  communities  there  developed  during  the  nine- 
teenth century,  upon  the  growth  of  better  transportation, 
a  great  increase  of  trade  and  commerce,  for  along  with  the 
<  better  transportation  went  a  specialization  in  industry, 
on  the  part  of  both  communities  and  classes.  The  modern 
city  is  often  largely  a  product  of  modern  transportation. 
We  find  all  the  great  cities  located  at  natural  breaks  in 
transportation.  The  cities  of  the  Middle  Ages  were 
largely  centers  of  trade  and  commerce  where  goods  were 
distributed  to  various  minor  centers.  The  modern  city 
has  not  lost  this  characteristic  through  developing  into  an 
industrial  center.  On  the  contrary,  the  status  of  the  city 
in  trade  and  commerce  makes  it  at  the  same  time  a  valu- 
able center  for  the  development  of  manufacturing  indus- 
tries. The  break  between  land  and  water  transportation 
is  particularly  favorable  to  the  development  of  large  cities. 
Thus,  we  find  New  York  located  where  goods  shipped  to 
Europe  must  be  transferred  from  land  to  water  transporta- 
tion ;  Chicago,  located  at  the  head  of  the  water  transporta- 
tion of  the  Great  Lakes ;  St.  Louis,  at  the  head  of  the  navi- 
gation of  the  Mississippi  River.  Only  a  few  of  the  great 
cities  of  the  United  States  in  1910  were  not  located  on  a 
river  or  some  other  navigable  water. 

This  brief  discussion  of  the  general  causes  of  the  growth 
of  cities  shows  in  the  clearest  possible  manner  the  tremen- 
dous importance  of  economic  conditions  in  our  civilization. 
We  have  seen  that  our  civilization  is  especially  charac- 


286  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE   CITY 

terized  by  a  tendency  to  the  predominance  of  the  urban 
over  the  rural.  We  have  also  seen  that  the  great  general 
causes  of  this  tendency  are  undoubtedly  economic.  How- 
ever, when  we  have  acknowledged  that  general  economic 
conditions  have  shaped  the  main  outline  of  our  civilization, 
that  is  certainly  as  far  as  we  are  warranted  in  going.  The 
existing  social  problems  of  both  the  city  and  the  rural , 
districts  are  certainly  dependent  upon  many  other  factors 
than  the  economic.  Moreover,  the  growth  of  cities  has 
been  influenced  also  by  certain  minor  factors  which  deserve 
mention,  though  they  are  in  large  measure  the  outcome 
or  the  reflex  of  the  general  causes  which  we  have  just  dis- 
cussed. Let  us  note  these. 

Minor  Causes  oj  the  Growth  of  Cities,  (i)  The  first  of 
these  minor  causes  is  the  better  wages  and  better  economic 
opportunities  which  cities  have  offered  to  individuals.  To 
be  sure,  wages  are  often  only  nominally  better  in  the  city 
than  in  the  country ;  but  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that 
with  the  growth  of  modern  industry  the  great  economic 
opportunities  of  our  age  have  been  mainly  in  the  cities. 
The  more  ambitious  elements  in  the  country  districts  have 
not  been  slow  to  see  this,  and  to  take  advantage  of  these 
opportunities.  This  is,  of  course,  simply  looking  at  thet 
three  general  causes  which  we  have  already  discussed, 
from  the  standpoint  of  individual  economic  interest. 

(2)  A  second  minor  cause  of  the  growth  of  cities  has  been 
the  superior  intellectual  and  educational  advantages  which 
city  life  affords.  The  cities  have  usually  had  superior 
schools  and  other  educational  facilities,  while  in  the  country 
the  development  of  these  facilities  has  lagged  behind. 
Circles  of  people  with  intellectual  interests  exist  very  fre- 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY  287 

quently  in  the  cities  but  very  seldom  in  the  country.  The 
city  pulpit  has  been  supplied,  as  a  rule,  with  the  ablest 
ministers  of  every  sect,  while  the  country  church  has  too 
often  lacked  even  a  resident  pastor. 

(3)  Still  another  cause  of  the  growth  of  the  modern  city 
has  been  the  superior  opportunities  for  pleasure  and  amuse- 
ment which  it  affords.     Such  opportunities  for  pleasure 
and  amusement,  if  they  have  not  attracted  many  people  to 
our  cities,   have   certainly  kept  many  people    in   them. 
Our  country  districts,  on  the  other  hand,  have  too  often  been 
deficient  in  opportunities  for  wholesome  play  and  amuse- 
ment.   Lack  of  opportunities  for  sociability  and  reasonable 
recreation  is  one  of  the  great  deficiencies  of  most  rural 
communities. 

(4)  The  superior  comforts  and  conveniences  of  city  life 
have  also  attracted  to  our  cities  many  who  have  amassed  a 
fortune  and  wish  to  retire  from  active  life.     Until  recently 
modern  conveniences  scarcely  existed  in  country  homes, 
and  even  now  but  few  country  homes  can  compare  in  their 
comforts  and  conveniences  with  those  occupied  by  people 
of_the  same  class  injour_citiejL _.  

(5)  Systems  of  taxation  have  also  had  something  to  do 
with  encouraging  the  growth  of  cities.     Hitherto,  American 
systems  of  taxation  have  operated  unfavorably  for  the 
farmer.    This  is  especially  true  of  the  general  property 
tax,  under  which  most  of  the  personal  property  in  cities, 
especially  that  in  the  form  of  securities,  has  hitherto  escaped 
taxation.     On  the  other  hand,  the  general  property  tax 
falls  most  heavily  upon  the  farmer  because  his  personal 
property  is  of  such  a  character  that  it  rarely  escapes  the 
assessor's  notice. 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 

'(6)  As  a  last  minor  cause  of  the  growth  of  cities  we  shall 

?ntion  the  ambition  and  restlessness  of  the  rural  popula- 
tion which  has  sprung  from  our  present  system  of  educa- 
tion. Our  rural  education  has  been  until  recently  almost 
entirely  of  an  intellectual  character,  but  poorly  fitted  to 
adjust  the  individual  to  rural  life.  Moreover,  it  has  so 
emphasized  individual  success  as  to  give  rise  to  unwise 
ambitions  and  unreasonable  discontent  in  many  individuals. 
The  education  of  farmers'  sons  and  daughters  has  frequently 
resulted,  therefore,  in  their  removal  from  the  country  to 
the  city.j 

Social  and  Moral  Conditions  of  City  Life.  —  Certain 
social  conditions  in  our  cities  are  worthy  of  attention 
in  order  that  we  may  understand  the  effect  of  the  city  upon 
social  and  racial  evolution. 

i.  City  Populations  have  a  Larger  per  cent  of  Females 
than  Rural  Populations.  All  of  our  fifteen  largest  cities, 
except  three,  contain  a  larger  per  cent  of  females  than  the 
states  in  which  they  are  located.  Thus  in  1910  in  New 
York  state  49.7  per  cent  of  the  population  was  female; 
New  York  city,  50.1  per  cent;  in  Pennsylvania,  48.6  per 
cent  of  the  population  was  female ;  Philadelphia,  50.9  per 
cent;  in  Missouri,  48.8  per  cent  of  the  population  was 
female ;  St.  Louis,  49.6  per  cent.  In  towns  of  the  United 
States  of  more  than  2500  population  the  per  cent  of  females 
is  49.9,  while  in  the  rural  districts  of  the  United  States  only 
47.7  per  cent  of  the  population  is  female.  The  chief  cause 
of  this  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that  in  cities  there 
are  many  more  economic  opportunities  for  women  than  in 
the  rural  districts,  although  other  causes  are  also  the  larger 
infantile  mortality  among  males  than  among  females,  and 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY  289 

the  larger  proportion  of  female  children  born  in  cities  than 
in  the  rural  districts. 

2.  People  in  the  Active  Period  of  Life,  from  Fifteen  to 
Sixty-five   Years  of  Age,  predominate  in  the  City.    In  1910, 
out  of  every  1000  individuals  in  the  United  States  as  a 
whole  there  were  321  under  fifteen  years  of  age,  634  between 
fifteen  and  sixty-five,  and  43  above  sixty-five  years  of  age. 
But  out  of  every  1000  in  the  cities  there  were  only  273 
under  fifteen  years  of  age,  and  only  40  above  sixty-five 
years  of  age,  while  685  were  between  fifteen  and  sixty-five 
years.     On  the  other  hand,  in  the  rural  districts  there  were 
362  out  of  every  1000  under  fifteen  years,  46  over  sixty- 
five,  while  there  were  only  590  between  fifteen  and  sixty- 
five.     (In  all  cases  the  age  of  two  in  a  thousand  was  un- 
known.)    The  cause  of  the  predominance  in  the  cities  of 
those  in  the  active  period  of  life  is  undoubtedly  due  to  the 
immigration  into  the  cities  from  the  country  districts.     This 
makes  the  life  of  cities  more  energetic  and  active,  more 
strenuous  than  it  would  otherwise  be. 

3.  The  Great  Cities  in  the  United  States  have  over  twice  as 
many  Foreign  Born  in  Their  Population  as  the  United  States 
as  a  whole.    This  has  been  sufficiently  discussed  under  the 
head  of  immigration. 

4.  The  Birth  Rate  is  higher  in  the  Cities  than  in  the  Rural 
Districts.    This  is  primarily  due  to  there  being  more  women 
of  child-bearing  age  in  the  cities.     In  the  United  States 
it  is  also  due  to  the  presence  of  so  many  foreign  born  in 
the  cities.    The  marriage  rate  is  also  higher  in  the  cities 
than  in  the  rural  districts.     The  following  statistics  based 
on   a   thousand   population   show   the   relative   difference 
between  the  cities  and  the  rural  districts  of  the  State  of 


2QO 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 


Massachusetts  in  marriage  rate,  birth  rate,  and  death  rate 
for  the  year  1910 : 


Marriage 
Rate. 

Birth  Rate. 

Death  Rate. 

Boston  

22.66 

26.36 

17.27 

Cities  over  50,000  

IQ.  T\ 

20.  S3 

16.66 

Rural  Districts  

11.86 

17.  CO 

1C.  73 

5.  The  Death  Rate  in  Cities  is  also  higher  than  in  the  Rural 
Districts,  as  the  above  table  has  just  shown.     In  the  decade 
1900-1909,   the  death  rate  in  the  rural  districts  of  the 
"  registration  area  "  of  the  United  States  was  13.8,  while 
in  the  urban  districts  it  was  17.    The  real  death  rate  of 
cities  is,  however,  much  higher  than  the  crude  statistics 
indicate.     If  we  allowed  for  the  rapid  growth  of  many  of 
our  cities  by  immigration  into  them  of  persons  in  the  prime 
of  life,  the  comparison  would  be  still  more  unfavorable 
to  the  cities.    The  high  death  rate  of  cities  is  undoubtedly 
due  to  .the  poor  sanitary  and  living  conditions  of  the  larger 
cities. 

6.  The  Physical  Condition  of  City  Populations.     Measure- 
ments by  Dr.  Beddoe  and  others  show  that  the  stature 
and  other  measurements  of  men  of  the  great  cities  of 
Great  Britain  are  far  below  those  of  the  rural  population. 
The  latest  English  commission  to  investigate  the  condi- 
tions of  city  life  also  reports  that  the  population  of  the  British 
cities  at  least  shows^marked  signs  of  physical  deterioration. 

7.  Mental  and  Moral  Degeneracy  in  our  Cities,  (i)  A 
larger  number  of  insane  are  found  in  our  cities  than  in  the 
rural  districts.  The  United  States  Census  of  1910  showed 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY  291 

that  out  of  every  100,000  persons  from  urban  communities 
86  were  in  hospitals  for  the  insane,  as  compared  with  only 
41  out  of  every  100,000  from  rural  communities. 

(2)  The  suicide  rate  is  much  higher  in  the  cities  than  in 
rural  districts.     In  1916  the  suicide  rate  in  the  United 
States -was  for  registration  cities  17.2  per  100,000  of  their 
population,  while  for  the  rural  districts  it  was  n. 

(3)  Poverty  and  pauperism  are  much  more  common 
in  our  cities  than  in  rural  districts.    About  one  third  of 
the  population  of  great  cities  may  safely  be  said  to  live 
below  the  poverty  line,  while  in  such  cities  as  New  York 
and  Boston  from  ten  to  fifteen  per  cent  of  the  population 
require  more  or  less  charitable  assistance  during  the  year. 

(4)  The  amount  of  crime  in  the  cities  is  about  twice 
as  great  as  in  the  rural  districts. 

(5)  Illegitimacy  in  the  cities  is  from  two  to  three  times 
as  great  as  in  rural  districts,  and  it  is  well  known  that  vice 
centers  very  largely  in  our  cities. 

All  these  facts  show  that  mental  and  moral  degeneracy 
is  much  more  common  in  our  urban  population  than  in 
our  rural  population,  and  that  the  biological  and  social 
aspects  of  our  city  life  present  pressing  problems. 

8.  Educational  and  Religious  Conditions  in  Cities.  We 
have  already  seen  that  illiteracy  among  the  native  white 
population  is  much  less  in  our  cities  than  in  the  rural 
districts.  This  is  undoubtedly  due  in  the  main  to  the 
better  facilities  for  education  in  our  cities,  and  it  is  here 
chiefly  that  we  find  the  bright  side  of  city  life ;  for  the  cities 
are  not  only  centers  of  the  evil  tendencies  of  our  civilization, 
but  are  also  the  centers  of  all  that  is  best  and  uplifting. 
The  urban  schools  in  general  are  open  much  longer  than 


292  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE   CITY 

the  rural  school,  the  attendance  in  them  is  better,  and  the 
teaching  is  much  more  efficient.  In  1910  the  urban  schools 
held  186.8  days  in  the  year,  while  the  rural  schools  held 
only  140  days.  The  attendance  in  the  urban  schools  was 
seventy  per  cent  of  the  enrollment,  while  in  the  rural 
schools  it  was  only  sixty-two  per  cent.  Besides  the  schools, 
of  course,  must  be  mentioned  many  other  educational  facili- 
ties to  be  found  in  our  cities,  such  as  those  in  connection 
with  social  settlements,  lecture  and  concert  halls,  theaters, 
libraries,  art  galleries,  and  museums,  —  all  of  which,  practi- 
cally, are  found  only  in  the  city. 

The  Census  Bureau  in  1906  took  a  religious  census,  and 
it  seemed  to  show  that  on  the  whole  religious  conditions 
were  better  in  our  cities  than  in  the  country  districts.  In 
cities  above  25,000  the  church  membership  was  46.9  per 
cent  of  the  population,  while  it  was  only  39  per  cent  of  the 
total  population.  Again,  in  cities  above  100,000  it  was 
46.8  per  cent  of  their  total  population,  although  in  the  four 
largest  cities  —  New  York,  Chicago,  Philadelphia,  and 
St.  Louis  —  it  was  only  42.8  per  cent  of  the  total  popula- 
tion. Some  recent  studies,  however,  while  not  extensive 
enough  to  justify  a  conclusion,  seem  to  indicate  that  in 
some  of  the  largest  cities  the  church  is  losing  its  hold,  and 
that  more  and  more  the  population  of  our  largest  urban 
centers  is  becoming  churchless,  if  not  without  religion. 
/  Even  if  this  is  so,  however,  it  also  remains  a  fact  that  the 
various  religious  denominations  put  forth  their  best  efforts 
in  these  largest  urban  centers,  and  that  more  is  being  done 
for  the  people  religiously  and  morally  in  these  centers  than 
perhaps  for  any  other  portion  of  the  world's  population. 

Finally,  it  must  be  noted  that  philanthropic  activities 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY  293 

center  largely  in  our  cities.  Most  of  the  agencies  of  remedial 
and  preventive  philanthropy,  such  as  charity  organization 
societies,  hospitals,  and  social  settlements  are  still  to  be 
found  only  in  the  city.  Therefore,  very  much  more  is  done  • 
for  city  populations  to  prevent  or  to  overcome  social  mal- 
adjustment than  is  done  for  rural  populations,* 

The  Reconstruction  of  Our  City  Life.  —/The  proposals 
for  dealing  with  the  evils  of  city  life  illustrate  the  foolish 
and  the  wise  methods  of  dealing  with  social  problems. 
The  foolish  method  is  to  try  to  get  away  from  the  problem. 
The  wise  method  is  to  meet  the  problem  by  fuller  and  more 
intelligent  control  of  the  social  situation.  Of  the  six. 
methods  which  we  shall  mention  for  dealing  with  the  evils 
of  city  life,  the  first  four  would  try  to  check  the  growth  of 
cities,  and  so  avoid  the  problem;  while  the  last  two,  recog- 
nizing that  the  cities  are  here  to  stay,  would  reconstruct 
city  life  through  scientific  control  over  its  conditions. 

(1)  The  first  method  is  to  make  agriculture  more  attrac- 
tive and  remunerative.    This  is  a  good  thing  in  itself,  butr 
as  we  have  seen,  it  will  not  check  the  growth  of  the  cities; 
rather,  every  improvement  in  the  conditions  of  agriculture 
in  the  way  of  making  it  more  productive  and  remunerative 
will  drive  more  to  the  cities. 

(2)  A  second  method,  akin  to  the  first,  is  to  make  village 
life  more  attractive.    Like  the  first  method,  this  is  good  in 
itself,  but  it  is  hardly  probable  that  it  will  stop  the  growth 
of  cities;  rather,  it  might  be  urged  that  village  improvement 
will  give  people  a  taste  of  the  higher  comforts  and  conven- 
iences to  be  found  in  cities  and  will  tend  to  send  them  to- 
the  city. 

(3)  The  third  proposed  method  is  to  colonize  the  poor 


294  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY 

of  the  cities  in  the  country.  This  is  the  so-called  "  back  to 
the  land  "  movement,  which  has  recently  been  advocated, 
especially  by  some  leaders  in  agriculture.  This  plan,  how- 
ever, while  it  may  benefit  individuals,  cannot  do  much  to- 
ward helping  solve  the  problem  of  the  city.  It  is  a  difficult 
thing  to  get  any  large  number  of  the  poor  in  the  city  ad- 
justed again  to  rural  life,  and  the  probability  is  that  in  many 
cases  they  would  be  worse  off  in  the  country  than  in  the 
city.  Moreover,  the  vacant  places  they  left  would  soon  be 
filled  by  others,  and  in  general  the  whole  plan  seems  to  be 
against  human  nature  as  well  as  against  the  social  forces 
of  the  time. 

(4)  Administrative  decentralization  may  be  mentioned 
as  a  plan  adopted  by  some  state  legislatures  to  prevent 
the  growth  of  cities,  that  is,  to  scatter  the  state  institutions 
through  the  rural  sections  of  the  state  instead  of  locating 
them  in  the  cities.     On  the  whole,  this  is  a  foolish  plan. 
The  cities  will  not  be  checked  in  their  growth  by  this,  while 
on  the  other  hand  it  is  the  cities  which  most  need  the  pres- 

of  the  state  institutions. 

(5)  The  most  important  remedy  for  the  cure  of  the  evils 
of  the  cities,  and  one  which  meets  these  evils  on  their  own 
ground,  is  what  has  been  called  "  improved  municipal  house- 
keeping " ;   that  is,  the  supervision  and  control  by  the  city 
of  all  those  things  which  are  used  in  common  by  the  people.^ 
The  idea  is  that  the  city  is  not  in  its  social  conditions  com- 
parable to  the  rural  community ;  rather  it  is  more  like  one 
big  household,  and  it  is  necessary,  therefore,  that  there  be 
collective  housekeeping,  so  to  speak,  in  order  to  keep  those 
things  which  the  people  use  in  common  at  least  in  good 
order.     This    has    also    been    called    "  municipal    social- 


THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY  295 

ism."  It  is  not  socialism,  however,  in  the  strict  sense,  for  it 
does  not  advocate  the  ownership  in  common  of  all  capital, 
but  rather  municipal  control  of  public  utilities.  We 
cannot  enter  into  this  large  subject,  upon  which  many  books 
have  been  written ;  to  a  few  of  these  the  student  will  find 
references  at  the  end  of  this  chapter.  Here  it  is  only  neces- 
sary to  say  that  all  of  this  civic  improvement  implies  that 
the  city  must  own  or  control  adequately  its  sewer  system, 
its  water  supply,  its  streets ;  that  it  must  control  the  housing 
of  the  people,  the  disposal  of  garbage,  the  smoke  nuisance, 
general  sanitary  and  living  conditions;  that  it  must  pro- 
vide adequate  protection  against  fire,  an  adequate  park 
system,  an  adequate  free  school  system,  with  public  play- 
grounds for  children,  free  libraries,  free  art  galleries  and 
museums,  municipal  theaters,  public  baths,  and  gym- 
nasiums. 

But  the  city  should  do  even  more  than  this  in  its  collec- 
tive capacity.  It  should  also  control  the  moral  conditions 
under  which  the  people  live.  It  should  inspect  and  censor 
public  recreations  and  amusements,  and  see  to  it  that  con- 
ditions favorable  to  moral  and  social  welfare  are  everywhere 
preserved  for  all  classes.  Vice  and  lawlessness  must  be 
sternly  repressed  if  city  life  is  not  to  breed  disorder  and1 
degeneration.  The  work  of  the  Board  of_PuMia-Weli:are__ 
of  Kansas  City,  Mo.,  may  be  especially  cited  as  a  splendid 
example  of  what  a  city  can  do  to  meet  the  higher  social  and 
moral  needs  of  its  people. 

All  of  this  is  of  course  a  species  of  socialism  in  the  sense 
that  it  is  collective  control  of  the  conditions  of  living  to- 
gether. It  advocates,  however,  that  the  city  should  take 
over  only  those  things  that  are  used  in  common.  The  trouble 


296  THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY 

with  this  so-called  municipal  socialism  is  that  it  presupposes 
a  pretty  high  degree  of  intelligence  on  the  part  of  the  peo- 
ple. Whether  or  not  a  municipality  shall  own  and  operate 
its  own  street  railways  and  electric  light  and  gas  plants,  is 
largely  a  question  of  the  development  of  the  social  con- 
sciousness and  intelligence  in  that  particular  community. 
In  some  communities  such  municipal  undertakings  have 
been  made  a  success ;  in  others  they  have  failed.  But  it  is 
/evident  that  with  a  large  mass  of  people  living  together 
the  common  conditions  of  living  must  be  subject  to  intelli- 
gent collective  control  if  human  life  and  character  are  to 
have  a  proper  environment  in  which  to  develop. 

(6)  The  last  remedy  proposed  for  the  evils  of  the  city 
is  the  development  of  the  suburbs  through  rapid  transit. 
This  is  already  being  rapidly  accomplished  in  many  of  our 
larger  cities.  The  solution  of  the  mechanical  problem  of 
rapid  transit  will  probably,  in  other  words,  tend  greatly 
to  relieve  automatically  the  present  congestion  which  we 
find  in  many  of  our  large  cities.  Probably  the  best  form  of 
such  rapid  transit  is  underground  electric  roads,  or  subways. 
Transportation  upon  these  roads  must  be  made  cheap 
enough  to  enable  workingmen  to  live  at  a  distance  from  their 
labor.  With  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  rapid  transit 
it  should  be  possible  to  scatter  a  city's  population  any- 
where within  a  radius  of  thirty  miles.  But  it  would  be  a 
mistake  to  think  that  rapid  transit  alone  will  solve  the  prob- 
lems of  city  communities.  Stringent  regulation  by  law  of 
sanitary  and  housing  conditions  and,  as  has  just  been 
said,  of  all  the  things  used  in  common,  is  necessary  to  put 
order  and  healthfulness  into  that  vast  household  which  we 
call  a  modern  great  city. 


THE  PROBLEM   OF  THE  CITY  297 

In  conclusion  we  would  emphasize  again  that  the  era  of 
the  city  is  just  beginning;  that  a  larger  and  larger  pro- 
portion of  our  population  must  come  to  live  in  the  cities,  and 
that,  therefore,  the  city  will  dominate  the  society  of  the 
future.  Hence,  humanity  must  solve  the  problem  of  the 
city  if  social  progress  is  to  continue.  And  the  problem  is 
by  no  means  insoluble.  Man  is  not  yet  adjusted  to  city 
life.  The  city  is  so  new  even  to  civilized  man  that  he  has 
carried  into  it  the  habits  which  he  practiced  in  isolated  rural 
communities/^These  are  the  sources  of  trouble  in  our  cities, 
and,  as  we  have  already  seen,  new  adjustments  have  to  be 
made  by  individuals  in  order  to  secure  harmonious  social 
relationships  under  the  crowded  conditions  of  the  city. 
The  city  requires,  therefore,  a  higher  degree  of  intelligence 
on  the  part  of  the  individual  than  the  rural  social  life,  and  a 
great  part  of  the  solution  of  the  problem  of  the  city  must 
come  through  the  development  of  such  higher  intelligence 
and  morality  by  means  of  education.  At  any  rate,  it  is 
foolish  to  decry  the  city  or  to  attempt  to  stop  its  growth. 
That  is  impossible  and,  we=4feink,  undesirable.  The  ideal 
social  life  of  man  has  never  been  the  isolated  life  of  the 
rural  community.  The  city  has  always  been  in  a  sense 
man's  ideal,  as  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  nearly  all  attempts 
to  depict,  a  perfect  human  society  have  been  pictures  of 
cities.  /Man's  ideal,  as  Dr.  Weber  says,  is  not  the  city 
or  the  country,  but  the  city  and  the  country  blended, 
and  this  is  what  the  city  of  the  future  should  become. 
No  doubt  the  time  will  come  when  present  cities  will  be 
looked  back  upon  with  horror,  as  we  look  back  on  eighteenth- 
century  cities.  The  city  of  the  future  need  not  present  any 
of  the  hideous,  disagreeable,  and  unwholesome  aspects  of 


298  THE  PROBLEM  OF  THE  CITY 

our  present  cities.  /They  have  been,  perhaps  not  altogether 
unjustly,  characterized  as  "monuments  of  human  greed." 
Their  condition  has  been  due,  however,  not  so  much  to 
the  deliberate  selfishness  of  individuals,  as  to  ignorance, 
wrong  laws,  wrong  industrial  conditions,  wrong  systems  of 
taxation,  of  party  politics,  and  of  city  government,  along 
of  course  with  our  commercialized  "mores."  There  is 
much,  however,  in  the  greater  solidarity  and  intensity  of 
social  life  in  the  city  which  contains  the  promise  of  a  higher 
social  life  for  mankind,  once  the  problems  of  city  life  are 
understood  and  mastered.  ^  Through  scientific  control  over 
the  conditions  of  life,  the  city  can  be  made  a  place  in  which 
human  beings  may  find  their  ideal  society. 

**J 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

HOWE,  The  Modern  City  and  Its  Problems,  Chaps.  I-V. 
ROWE,  Problems  of  City  Government,  Chaps.  I,  II. 
WRIGHT,  The  American  City. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

FAIRLIE,  Municipal  Administration. 
GEDDES,  Cities  in  Evolution. 
HOWE,  The  City,  the  Hope  of  Democracy. 
POLLOCK  and  MORGAN,  Modern  Cities. 
WEBER,  The  Growth  of  Cities. 
WILCOX,  The  American  City. 
WILCOX,  Great  American  Cities. 
ZUEBLIN,  American  Municipal  Progress. 

On  the  Rural  Problem: 

GILLETTE,  Constructive  Rural  Sociology.    Revised  Edition,  1919. 

GALPIN,  Country  Life. 

VOGT,  Introduction  to  Rural  Sociology. 

WILSON,  The  Evolution  of  the  Country  Community. 


CHAPTER  XIH 

POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

,  WHILE  the  many  social  problems  arising  from  the  pres- 
ence in  society  of  abnormal  or  socially  unadjusted  classes, 
namely,  the  dependent,  defective,  and  delinquent  classes, 
cannot  be  discussed  in  this  book  adequately,  yet  they 
must  be  briefly  noticed  in  order  to  correlate  them  with 
other  social  problems,  and  even  more  in  order  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  student  to  the  vast  literature  which 
exists  concerning  these  problems. 

Definitions  of  Poverty  and  Pauperism.  —  Poverty  is  a 
relative  term,  difficult  to  define,  but  as  generally  employed 
in  sociological  writings  at  the  present  it  means  that  eco- 
nomic and  social  state  in  which  persons  have  not  sufficient 
income  to  maintain  health  and  physical  efficiency.  All 
who  do  not  receive  a  sufficient  income  to  maintain  the 
minimum  standard  of  living  necessary  for  efficiency  are 
known  as  the  "  poor,"  or  are  said  to  live  below  the  poverty 
line. 

Pauperism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  state  of  legal  depend- 
ence in  which  a  person  who  is  unable  or  unwilling  to 
support  himself  receives  relief  from  public  sources.  This 
is,  however,  legal  pauperism.  The  word  as  popularly  used 
has  come  to  mean  a  degraded  state  of  willing  dependence. 
A  pauper  in  this  popular  sense  is  a  person  unwilling  to  sup- 
port himself  and  who  becomes  a  social  parasite. 

299 


300  POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM 

Poverty  is  closely  related  to  dependence  or  pauperism, 
because  it  is  frequently  the  anteroom,  so  to  speak,  to 
pauperism,  although  only  a  small  proportion  of  those  who 
live  in  poverty  actually  become  dependent  in  any  one  year. 
That  is  to  say,  paupers  are  usually  poor  people  who  have 
failed  in  their  struggle  to  support  themselves  without  pub- 
lic aid. 

The  Extent  of  Poverty  and  Pauperism  in  the  United 
States.  —  The  census  reports  indicate  that  in  the  year  1910 
there  were  about  700,000  dependents  in  institutions  in 
the  United  States.  While  the  number  who  received  re- 
lief outside  of  institutions  from  public  and  private  sources  is 
not  known,  it  is  certain  that  it  is  many  times  the  total  of 
those  in  institutions.  It  is  generally  estimated  that  about 
five  per  cent  of  our  population  are  recipients  of  some  sort  of 
charitable  relief  in  a  single  year.  In  our  large  cities  the 
number  who  receive  relief  from  public  and  private  sources, 
even  in  average  years,  is  very  much  higher.  Many  esti- 
mates place  the  total  number  of  persons  who  receive  some 
sort  of  relief  in  a  single  year  in  New  York  city  above  ten 
per  cent.  It  seems  probable,  therefore,  that  taking  the 
country  as  a  whole  nearly  five  per  cent  of  our  population 
require  some  sort  of  help  every  year.  That  would  make 
the  number  who  received  relief  in  1910  about  4,500,000, 
and  probably  this  is  not  an  excessive  estimate.  Upon 
the  basis  of  these  and  other  known  facts  it  has  been  esti- 
mated that  the  number  of  people  in  the  United  States  living 
below  the  poverty  line  is  more  than  10,000,000  in  years 
of  average  prosperity.  If  negroes  of  insufficient  income 
are  included  in  this  estimate  of  those  below  the  poverty 
line,  it  is  certainly  not  excessive.  Probably  this  estimate 


POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM  301 

understates  rather  than  overstates  the  number  of  persons 
in  the  United  States  who  live  upon  such  a  low  standard 
that  they  fail  to  maintain  physical  and  mental  efficiency. 

Moreover,  investigations  in  the  countries  of  Europe 
show  that  the  estimate  of  fifteen  per  cent  of  our  popu- 
lation living  in  poverty  is  far  from  excessive.  Mr.  Charles 
Booth,  in  his  Life  and  Labor  of  the  People  of  London,  says 
that  about  thirty  per  cent  of  the  population  of  London 
live  below  the  poverty  line,  and  Mr.  B.  S.  Rowntree  found 
in  the  English  City  of  York  about  the  same  proportion. 
While  poverty  is  more  prevalent  in  the  old  world  than  in 
the  United  States,  still  it  is  reliably  estimated  that  at  least 
half  of  the  families  of  the  United  States  are  practically 
propertyless,  which  again  indicates  that  an  estimate  of  from 
ten  to  fifteen  per  cent  below  the  poverty  line  is  conservative. 
Moreover,  when  we  extend  our  view  in  history  we  find 
that  poverty  has  been  oftentimes  in  the  past  even  much 
more  prevalent  than  it  is  at  present.  This  question  of 
poverty  is,  in  other  words,  a  world-old  question  and  is 
intimately  bound  up  with  the  question  of  material  civili- 
zation —  that  is,  man's  conquest  of  nature  —  and  with 
social  organization,  —  the  relations  of  men  to  one  another. 
At  certain  times  in  history  certain  institutions  like  slavery 
.have  either  obviated  or  concealed  poverty,  and  particu- 
larly its  extreme  expressions,  in  dependence  and  legal 
pauperism.  Nevertheless  we  can  regard  these  questions 
of  poverty  and  pauperism  as  practically  existing  in  all  civili- 
zations and  in  all  ages.  This  is  not  saying,  however, 
that  modern  poverty  and  pauperism  may  not  have  cer- 
tain peculiar  foundations  in  modern  social  and  industrial 
conditions.  It  is  only  saying  that  it  is  useless  to  search 


302 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 


wholly  for  the  causes  of  poverty  in  conditions  that  are 
peculiar  to  the  modern  world,  because  poverty  and  pauper- 
ism are  not  peculiarly  modern  problems. 

The  Genesis  of  the  Depressed  Classes.  —  So  complex 
a  problem,  it  might  be  said  at  once,  cannot  manifestly  have 
a  simple  explanation,  yet  this  has  been  the  mistake  of  many 
social  thinkers  of  the  past.  They  have  sought  some  sin-' 
gle  simple  explanation  of  human  misery,  and  particularly 
in  its  form  of  economic  distress  or  poverty.  Malthus, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  attributed  all  human  misery  to 
the  fact  that  population  tends  to  increase  more  rapidly 
than  food  supply,  and  that  it  is  the  pressure  of  population 
upon  food  which  sufficiently  explains  poverty  in  human 
society,  v  Karl  Marx  offered  an  equally  sweeping  explana- 
tion when  he  attributed  all  poverty  to  the  fact  that  labor 
is  not  paid  a  sufficient  wage;  that  the  capitalist  appro- 
priates an  unjust  share  of  the  product  of  labor,  leaving 
to  the  laborer  just  enough  to  maintain  existence  and 
reproduce.  Henry  George  in  the  same  spirit,  in  his  Progress 
and  Poverty,  attributed  all  poverty  to  one  cause,  —  the 
landlord's  appropriation  of  the  unearned  increment  in 
land  values.  There  is,  of  course,  some  truth  in  all  of 
these  sweeping  generalizations,  but  it  must  be  said  that 
there  is  not  sufficient  in  any  of  them  to  stand  the  test  of 
concrete  investigation;  rather  these  men  have  made  the 
mistake  of  attempting  to  explain  a  very  complex  social 
phenomenon  in  terms  of  a  single  set  of  causes,  which,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  has  been  the  bane  of  social  science 
in  the  past.  Even  the  theory  of  evolution  itself  fails  to 
explain,  as  ordinarily  stated,  the  genesis  of  the  depressed 
classes  in  human  society.  It  may  explain  it  in  part, 


POVERTY   AND   PAUPERISM  303 

however.  As  we  have  already  seen,  biological  variations 
are  always  found  in  individuals,  making  some  naturally 
superior,  some  naturally  inferior,  and  in  the  struggle  for 
existence  we  know  that  the  inferior  are  more  liable  to  go 
down;  they  are  less  apt  to  maintain  a  place  in  society, 
and  hence  more  readily  fall  into  the  depressed  classes. 
Many  well-endowed  persons,  however,  also  fall  into  the 
dependent  classes  through  accidents  and  causes  inherent 
in  our  social  organization  but  in  no  way  natural.  '  Thus, 
owing  to  our  industrial  system  and  to  our  laws  of  prop- 
erty, inheritance,  and  the  like,  it  often  happens  that  a 
superior  person  through  sickness  or  other  accident  gets 
caught  in  a  mesh  of  causes  which  bring  him  down  to  the 
dependent  classes,  and  on  the  other  hand  inferior  individ- 
uals, through  inheritance  or  "  social  pull,"  oftentimes  enjoy 
a  very  large  economic  surplus  all  their  lives.  It  may  be 
admitted,  however,  that  slight  defects  in  personal  char- 
acter or  ability  enter  into  practically  all  cases  of  depend- 
ence. This  is  more  apt  to  be  the  case  also  in  a  progressive 
society  like  our  own,  where  rising  standards  of  efficiency 
make  the  economic  struggle  more  severe  all  the  time. 
Formerly,  for  example,  any  employee  could  drink  and  retain 
his  position,  but  now  the  drinker  quickly  loses  his  position 
in  many  industries  and  gives  place  to  the  sober  man. 
Oftentimes,  however,  such  defects  that  give  rise  to  depend- 
ence are  not  inherent  but  are  produced  by  social  con- 
ditions themselves,  like  faulty  education,  bad  surroundings, 
and  the  like.  ^Through  the  improvement  of  social  condi- 
tions, therefore,  there  is  no  doubt  that  much  of  the  present 
poverty  of  the  civilized  world  can  be  wiped  out)  This  is 
not  saying,  however,  that  poverty  and  dependence  will 


304  POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

ever  be  wholly  eliminated.  Probably,  no  matter  how  ideal 
social  conditions  might  be,  even  under  the  most  just 
social  organization,  there  would  be  some  accidents  and 
variations  in  individuals  which  would  produce  a  con- 
dition of  dependence.  Moreover,  the  elimination  of  pov- 
erty and  pauperism  is  not  so  simple  as  some  suppose.  It 
is  not  wholly  a  question  of  the  improvement  of  social 
conditions;  it  also  involves  the  control  of  physical  hered- 
ity, be'cause  many  of  the  principal  defects  that  give  rise 
to  dependence  are  inherent  in  heredity.  But  man  can 
control  to  some  extent  even  the  birth  of  the  inferior  or 
unfit  classes.  This  may  seem,  however,  so  far  in  the  future 
that  it  is  idle  to  discuss  it,  although,  as  we  shall  see,  society 
is  undoubtedly  taking  steps  to  prevent  the  propagation  of 
the  unfit.  In  the  meantime,  however,  so  long  as  humanity 
progresses  through  natural  selection  we  shall  have  poverty, 
to  some  extent  at  least,  no  matter  how  much  industrial 
and  social  conditions  may  be  improved.  Yet  without  the 
control  of  physical  heredity  or  the  substitution  of  arti- 
ficial for  natural  selection,  poverty  can  be  undoubtedly 
greatly  lessened,  and  it  is  the  rational  aim  of  applied 
social  science  to  discover  how  this  may  be  done.  It 
would  seem  that  the  existence  of  10,000,000  persons  in  the 
United  States  living  below  the  poverty  line  cannot  be 
justified  upon  either  moral  or  economic  grounds;  that  it 
represents  a  great  waste  of  human  life  and  human  resources, 
and  that  much  of  the  social  maladjustment  which  this 
poverty  is  an  expression  of  might  easily  yield  to  wisely 
instituted  remedial  measures.  If  the  social  maladjust- 
ment which  is  undoubtedly  the  cause  of  the  bulk  of 
modern  poverty  were  done  away  with,  it  is  safe  to  say  that 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  3°5 

it  would  be  reduced  to  less  than  one  third  of  its  present 
dimensions. 

The  Concrete  Causes  of  Poverty.  —  It  is  necessary  to 
inquire  somewhat  more  minutely  into  the  concrete  con- 
ditions, social  and  individual,  which  give  rise  to  poverty 
and  dependence.  Manifestly  the  poor  do  not  constitute, 
any  single  class  in  society.  All  classes,  in  a  sense,  are 
represented  among  the  poor,  and  the  causes  of  poverty y 
which  are  manifest  will  depend  very  greatly  upon  the  class 
of  the  poor  that  is  studied.  If,  for  example,  we  should 
study  the  causes  of  dependence  among  defective  classes,  nat- 
urally personal  defects  of  various  sorts  would  be  emphasized. 
Again,  if  we  should  study  almshouse  paupers,  we  should 
expect  to  find  the  causes  of  their  dependence  different  from 
the  causes  of  the  temporary  dependence  of  those  who  are 
dealt  with  outside  of  institutions  and  largely  by  private 
societies,  especially  the  charity  organization  societies  of 
large  cities.  It  is  especially,  however,  this  latter  class  of 
temporary  dependents  that  we  are  most  interested  in, 
because  they  show  most  clearly  the  forces  operating  to 
produce  the  various  classes  of  permanent  dependents. 

There  are  two  great  classes  of  causes  of  poverty:  objec- 
tive causes,  or  causes  outside  of  the  individual,  that  is, 
in  the  environment;  and  subjective  causes,  or  causes  within 
the  individual.  We  shall  take  up  first  the  objective  causes. 

The  Objective  Causes  of  Poverty.  The  objective  causes 
of  poverty  may  be  again  divided  into  causes  hi  the  physical 
environment  and  causes  in  the  social  environment.  The 
causes  in  the  physical  environment  should  not  be  over- 
looked, even  though  to  a  great  extent  they  may  not  be 
amenable  to  social  control.  Much  poverty  in  certain 


306  POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

regions  is  caused  simply  by  the  unpropitious  physical 
environment,  such  as  unproductive  soil,  bad  climate,  and 
the  like.  Added  to  these  unpropitious  factors  in  the 
environment  we  have  also  great  natural  calamities,  such 
as  tornadoes,  floods,  earthquakes,  and  volcanic  eruptions. 
Every  one  is  familiar  with  the  great  amount  of  misery 
which  is  caused,  temporarily  at  least,  by  such  calamities. 
Again,  certain  things  in  the  organic  environment,  par- 
ticularly in  the  way  of  disease-producing  bacteria,  are  also 
productive  of  much  poverty.  Certain  bacteria  exist,  we 
now  know,  plentifully  in  nature,  such  as  the  malaria 
germ,  to  which  rightfully  has  been  ascribed  the  physical 
degeneracy  of  people  living  in  certain  sections  of  the  earth. 

But  the  most  important  objective  causes  of  poverty  are 
undoubtedly   those  found  in   the   social   environment,  - 
those  which  spring  from  certain  social  conditions  or  faults 
in  social  organization.     Among  these  we  may  mention: 

(i)  Economic  Causes.  Defective  industrial  organization 
and  economic  evils  of  various  sorts  are  thought  by  many 
persons  to  be  the  main  productive  causes  of  poverty  and 
dependence  in  modern  society,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  a  very  large  per  cent  of  poverty  may  be  traced  directly 
to  economic  evils.  This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  the 
schedules  of  all  charity  organization  societies  "  lack  of  em- 
ployment "  figures  as  the  first  or  second  most  conspicu- 
ous cause  of  distress  in  the  cases  with  which  such  societies 
deal.  -*-It  is  usually  estimated  that  from  twenty  to  forty 
per  cent  of  all  such  cases  of  dependence  may  be  attributed 
to  lack  of  employment,  not  due  to  the  employee.  It  is 
well  known  that  in  periods  of  industrial  depression  the 
number  of  applicants  for  aid  in  our  large  cities  increases 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  307 

enormously,  and  local  strikes  and  lockouts  frequently  have 
the  same  effect.  Again,  changes  in  methods  of  produc- 
tion through  the  introduction  of  new  machinery  frequently 
displace  large  numbers  of  workingmen,  who,  on  account 
of  age  or  other  reasons,  fail  to  get  employment  along  new 
lines.  Changes  in  trade  brought  about  through  changes 
in  fashions  have  to  some  extent  at  least  a  similar  effect. 
Again,  fluctuations  in  the  value  of  money  may  undoubtedly 
depress  a  debtor  class  to  the  point  of  dependence.  Un- 
wise methods  of  taxation,  such  as  levying  heavy  taxes  on 
the  necessaries  of  life,  produce  a  great  deal  of  poverty  and 
economic  distress.  Systems  of  land  tenure  such  as  prevail 
in  England  and  even  to  some  extent  in  the  United  States, 
may  also  be  another  economic  cause  of  poverty.  The 
free  land  which  has  up  to  the  present  time  existed  in  this 
country  has  been  a  great  aid  against  poverty.  The  employ- 
ment of  women  and  children  in  factories  is  another  cause 
of  poverty  which  needs  to  be  mentioned  under  this  head. 
As  we  have  already  seen,  this  breaks  up  the  home,  and  in 
the  case  of  the  employment  of  children  stops  the  develop- 
ment of  the  child.  Still  another  economic  cause  of  poverty 
is  unhealthful  and  dangerous  occupations.  The  disease- 
begetting  occupations  in  modernjndustry  are  very  numer- 
ous,  such  as  hat  making,  glass  blowing,  the  grinding  of 
tools,  and  the  like  —  any  work  in  which  there  is  a  great 
deal  of  dust.  Among  dangerous  occupations  must  also  be 
included  those  in  which  there  are  numerous  accidents, 
such  as  mining  and  railway  occupations.  The  accidents  in 
mines  and  on  railways  in  the  United  States  each  year  cause 
as  many  deaths  and  serious  injuries  as  have  often  resulted 
in  many  a  petty  war.  Thus,  on  the  railways  of  the  United 


308  POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM 

States  in  1916  there  was  a  total  of  10,001  persons  killed 
and  196,722  injured,  including  the  industrial  accidents 
of  employees,  —  one  employee  being  killed  in  every  five 
hundred  and  fifty,  and  one  injured  in  every  nine.  While  it 
is  improbable  that  our  great  industries  can  be  carried  on 
without  some  sacrifice  of  health  and  life,  it  seems  reasonable 
to  believe  that  the  number  of  those  who  are  sacrificed  at 
present  is  far  greater  than  is  necessary,  and  that  reasonable 
precautions  in  industry  might  greatly  increase  the  health- 
fulness  of  the  occupations  and  diminish  the  number  of 
accidents  to  employees. 

On  the  whole,  it  is  probable  that  these  economic  causes  of 
poverty  figure  in  from  50  to  80  per  cent  of  all  cases,  not 
operating  alone,  to  be  sure,  but  often  in  connection  with 
faults  of  character  or  physical  or  mental  defects  in  the 
individual;  for  it  is  always  to  be  remembered  in  discussing 
the  causes  of  poverty  that  one  never  finds  a  case  which  can 
be  fairly  attributed  to  a  single  cause.  The  complexity  of 
causes  operating  in  the  case  of  a  single  dependent  family 
frequently  makes  it  impossible  for  any  one  to  say  with 
certainty  what  is  the  chief  and  what  are  the  contribut- 
ing causes.  Oftentimes  what  appears  to  be  the  chief 
cause,  such  as  lack  of  employment,  has  back  of  it  defects  in 
individual  character  which  are  not  apparent  to  the  investi- 
gator. Researches  along  this  line  have  shown  that  the 
number  of  cases  of  distress  which  may  be  attributed  to  lack 
of  employment,  for  example,  may  be  very  greatly  reduced 
when  all  individual  defects  are  taken  into  consideration. 
This,  however,  is  not  an  argument  for  regarding  the  eco- 
nomic causes  of  poverty  as  any  less  important  than  has 
been  indicated. 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

(2)  Unsanitary  conditions  of  living  are  frequent  causes 
of  poverty.     Among  these  unsanitary  conditions  may  be 
mentioned  especially  the  housing  of  the  poor.     The  housing 
of  the  poor  in  badly  ventilated,  poorly  lighted,  and  unsani- 
tary dwellings  greatly  increases  sickness  and  death  and 
undoubtedly  contributes  greatly  to  their  economic  depres- 
sion.   Thus  in  New  York  city  in  the  first  ward,  where  there 
is  only  one  house  on  each  lot,  the  death  rate  is  29  per  1000  of 
the  population,  but  where  rear  tenements  have  been  erected 
it  is  62  per  1000  of  the  population.     The  importance  of 
public  sanitation,  and  especially  of  the  prevention  of  over- 
crowding and  the  securing  of  properly  lighted  and  venti- 
lated dwellings  for  the  people,  is  so  great  that  we  need  not 
enlarge  upon  it. 

(3)  Defects  in  our  educational  system  are  certainly  pro- 
ductive of  poverty.     Ignorant  and  illiterate  persons  are 
much  more  liable  to  become  dependent.     In   particular 
the  lack  of  industrial  training  in  our  public  schools  is  a 
prolific  cause  of   dependence   in   our  complex   industrial 
civilization. 

(4)  Defects  in  government,  permitting  corruption  on  the 
one  hand,  or  failing  to  check  economic  or  sanitary  evils  on 
the  other  hand,  are  manifest  causes  of  poverty.     Indeed, 
inasmuch  as  government  exists  to  regulate  the  whole  social 
order,  wherever  it  fails  to  perform  this  work  properly  some 
economic  distress  must  ensue. 

(5)  Corruption  in  social  institutions  and  customs  is  cer- 
tainly a  cause  of  poverty:  such,  for  example,  is  the  custom 
of  social  drinking,  and  such  also  the  unwise  and  indiscrimi- 
nate charity  which  has  so  often  existed  in  the  past. 

(6)  Unrestficted  immigration,  especially  in  our  Eastern 


310  POVERTY   AND   PAUPERISM 

states  and  cities,  is,  as  we  have  already  seen,  a  prolific  cause 
•of  dependence. 

The  Subjective  Causes  of  Poverty  are  the  causes  within  the 
individual.  Among  these  must  be  enumerated:  (i)  Physical 
and  mental  defects  of  all  sorts,  especially  those  arising  from 
sickness  and  accidents.  Sickness  causing  temporary  or  per- 
manent disability  figures  in  from  15  to  30  per  cent  of  all 
cases  applying  for  relief  in  our  large  cities.  Probably  it 
is  the  most  common  and  most  important  single  cause  of 
poverty  with  which  charity  workers  have  to  deal.  Back 
of  sickness,  however,  are  often  remote  causes  in  the  environ- 
ment or  in  personal  character.  We  have  already  spoken 
of  accident  as  a  cause  of  poverty  in  connection  with  dan- 
gerous occupations.  It  is  only  necessary  to  add  that  good 
authorities  estimate  that  there  are  over  1,000,000  serious 
accidents  in  the  United  States  every  year,  in  order  to  see 
that  disabilities  resulting  from  accident  are  prolific  as  causes 
of  poverty,  especially  in  our  large  industrial  centers.  The 
physical  and  mental  defects  which  manifest  themselves  in 
the  defective  classes  proper,  such  as  the  feeble-minded,  the 
insane,  the  epileptics,  the  deaf-mutes,  and  the  blind,  do  not 
need  to  be  dwelt  upon  as  causes  of  dependence. 

(2)  Next  after  sickness  in  the  list  of  subjective  causes  of 
poverty  comes  intemperance.  While  the  effect  of  intemper- 
ance in  producing  poverty  has  often  been  exaggerated,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  intemperance  is  one  of  the  most 
important  causes  with  which  we  have  to  deal.  Back  of 
intemperance,  of  course,  may  often  be  again  causes  in  the 
social  environment,  or  other  remote  causes,  but  these  do  not 
detract  from  the  fact  that  practically  one  fourth  of  all  the 
cases  of  distress  with  which  charity  organization  societies 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  311 

have  to  deal  are  attributable,  more  or  less,  to  intemperance. 
The  Committee  of  Fifty  who  investigated  this  subject  found 
that,  in  thirty-three  cities,  out  of  thirty  thousand  cases 
dependence  was  due  to  personal  intemperance  in  18.46  per 
cent,  and  due  to  the  intemperance  of  others  in  9.36  per  cent, 
making  a  total  of  27.82  per  cent  of  cases  in  which  intem- 
perance can  be  traced  as  a  cause  of  poverty.  Other  investi- 
gations conducted  in  American  cities  give  substantially  the 
same  results,  although  certain  other  investigations  in  English 
cities  give  higher  percentages.  It  is  noteworthy  also  that 
in  an  investigation  conducted  by  the  Massachusetts  Bureau 
of  Labor  39  per  cent  of  the  cases  of  poverty  were  attributed 
directly  or  indirectly  to  drink.  Again  the  Committee  of 
Fifty  found  that  in  the  case  of  alms-house  paupers  a  con- 
siderably higher  per  cent  owed  their  condition  to  the  influ- 
ence of  drink  either  directly  or  indirectly,  the  percentage 
being  41.55. 

(3)  Sexual  vice  is  undoubtedly  a  prolific  cause  of  poverty, 
although  it  is  very  hard  to  trace  concretely  in  the  study  of 
specific  cases.     Dr.  Dugdale,  however,  in  his  study  of  the 
Jukes  family  places  sexual  vice  even  ahead  of  intemperance 
as  a  cause  of  their  degradation,  and  other  similar  studies  of 
similar  families  have  reached  substantially  the  same  results. 

(4)  Shiftlessness  and  laziness  are  frequently  found  in  the 
lists  of  causes  of  dependence  used  by  charity  organization 
societies,  from  10  to  15  per  cent  of  the  cases  of  distress  being 
attributed  more  or  less  to  these  causes.     It  is  now  generally 
agreed,  however,  that  in  most  cases  these  causes  may  be 
resolved  into  more  remote  causes,  laziness  being  oftentimes 
attributable   to  a  degenerate  or  at   least  undervitalized 
physical  condition.^ 


312  POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM 

(5)  Old  age,  which  has  not  been  rendered  destitute  by 
vice,  drink,  or  other  faults  of  character,  is  frequently  in  itself 
a  cause  of  dependence.     Old  age  seems  to  figure  more  largely 
as  a  cause  of  dependence  in  the  European  statistics  than  in 
American;  nevertheless,  even  in  America  we  frequently  find 
old  persons  who  have  worked  hard  all  their  lives  and  yet 
come  to  poverty  in  their  old  age  through  no  fault  of  their 
own.     It  is  for  this  reason  that  many  are  urging  old-age 
pensions  as  a  means  of  preventing  dependence  among  the 
aged. 

(6)  Neglect  and  desertion  by  relatives,  or  the  disregard 
of  family  ties,  in  America  at  least,  may  be  put  down  as  one 
of  the  important  causes  of  dependence.     From  five  to  ten 
per  cent  of  all  the  cases  of  distress,  for  example,  which 
charity  organization  societies  in  our  large  cities  deal  with 
are  those  of  deserted  wives.     Again,  it  is  particularly  com- 
mon in  America  for  children  to  fail  to  support  aged  parents 
and  even  the  desertion  of  children  by  parents  is  of  frequent 
occurrence. 

(7)  Death  of  main  support  must  also  be  mentioned  as  an 
important  cause  of  dependence.    Widows  and  their  children 
always  figure  largely  among  those  helped  by  charitable 
societies  and  institutions.     Probably  from  10  to  20  per  cent 
of  all  cases  dealt  with  by  societies  for  relieving  temporary 
distress  are  cases  in  which  the  death  of  the  breadwinner  has 
temporarily  rendered  the  family  dependent. 

(8)  Crime,  dishonesty,  ignorance,  and  the  like  are  mani- 
fest frequent  causes  of  dependence,  and  as  such  need  no 
discussion. 

We  have  enumerated  in  detail  some  of  the  more  important 
objective  and  subjective  causes  of  poverty  and  dependence 


POVERTY  AND    PAUPERISM  313 

in  order  that  the  student  may  see  that  such  causes  are  very 
complex,  and,  as  we  have  already  said,  there  rarely  exists 
a  dependent  family  in  which  three  or  more  of  these  causes 
are  not  found  to  be  active.  Certain  questions  arise  from 
such  a  brief  presentation  as  this  which  we  may  mention  but 
cannot  hope  adequately  to  deal  with.  Such,  for  example, 
is  the  question  whether  the  subjective  causes  of  poverty  can 
all  be  reduced  to  objective  causes.  In  our  opinion  this  can- 
not be  done,  because  the  subjective  causes  have  their  roots 
in  biological  and  psychological  conditions,  which  cannot  be 
attributed  directly  to  causes  in  the  environment.  No  doubt, 
however,  many  of  the  subjective  causes  of  poverty  are 
characteristics  which  have  been  acquired  by  individuals 
from  the  influence  of  their  environment.  When  we  attrib- 
ute a  certain  per  cent  of  poverty  to  intemperance,  for  exam- 
ple, it  is  probable  that  that  particular  personal  defect  may 
be  ascribed  almost  wholly  to  the  environment.  On  the 
other  hand,  there  are  other  personal  defects,  such  as  sick- 
ness, vice,  and  mental  deficiency,  that  cannot  always  with 
certainty  be  traced  to  environmental  factors.  It  is  safest 
to  conclude  that  while  personality  is  built  up  largely  out  of 
social  influences,  society  is,  on  the  other  hand,  also  rooted 
in  human  nature,  so  that  both  objective  and  subjective 
causes  combine  to  produce  practically  all  social  phenomena, 
and  especially  the  phenomena  of  poverty  and  dependence. 
It  is  unscientific,  therefore,  to  disregard  either  the  subjective 
or  the  objective  causes  of  poverty. 

Another  question  which  is  frequently  raised  in  connection 
with  poverty  or  dependence  is,  whether  it  is  due  to 
misconduct  or  misfortune.  This  question  really  has  not 
much  meaning  in  it  when  it  is  analyzed.  As  we  have 


314  POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

already  seen  in  practically  every  case  of  poverty,  personal 
defects  and  bad  environment  combine.  Only  a  few  of 
these  personal  defects,  however,  can  by  any  proper  use  of  lan- 
guage be  regarded  as  misconduct.  The  great  mass  of  pov- 
erty, therefore,  seems  attributable  to  misfortune  rather  than 
to  misconduct,  —  using  these  words  in  their  popular  sense. 
But  such  a  conclusion  as  this  necessarily  rests  upon  a  some-  ' 
what  superficial  examination  of  the  causes  of  distress  which 
does  not  enter  into  the  remote  springs  of  personal  character 
and  development.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  unwise  to  attempt 
to  divide  the  poor  into  the  "  worthy  "  and  "  unworthy  " 
poor,  as  has  often  been  done,  for  no  one  can  say  who  is  the 
worthy  and  who  is  the  unworthy  in  a  moral  sense.  The 
only  sense  in  which  these  words  may  be  used  scientifi- 
cally in  charitable  work  is  to  mean  "needy"  and  "not 
needy." 

Pauperism  and  Degeneracy.  In  order  to  see  more  clearly 
the  biological  roots  of  dependence  we  must  notice  briefly 
the  relation  of  habitual  pauperism  to  degeneracy.  Studies 
like  that  made  by  Dr.  Dugdale  of  the  Jukes  family  show 
that  unquestionably  there  is  in  many  instances  a  close 
relation  between  habitual  pauperism  of  various  types  and 
degeneracy.  Out  of  709  in  the  Jukes  family  studied  by| 
Dugdale  500  had  been  aided.  Pauperism  was  7^  times  as 
common  among  the  Jukes  as  in  the  ordinary  population. 
Along  with  the  pauperism  of  the  Jukes  went  prostitution, 
illegitimacy,  crime,  and  physical  disease  and  defects.  Many 
other  studies  have  shown  the  same  intimate  relation  between 
physical  degeneracy  and  habitual  dependence  or  pauperism. 
There  can  be  no  doubt,  therefore,  that  general  physical 
degeneracy,  or  biological  unfitness,  is,  as  we  have  already 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  31$ 

asserted  in  the  beginning,  a  conspicuous  factor  in  the  worst 
cases  of  chronic  pauperism. 

The  Influence  of  Heredity  upon  Pauperism.  Similar 
studies  to  those  already  mentioned  have  shown  that  de- 
pendence is  oftentimes  hereditary  in  families  from  genera- 
tion to  generation.  This  is  doubtless  based  upon  the 
inheritance  of  physical  and  mental  defects.  Indirectly, 
therefore,  there  is  such  a  thing  as  hereditary  pauperism. 
Now  we  know  from  Weismann's  law  that  acquired  char- 
acteristics are  not  inherited,  but  only  congenital,  or  in- 
born characteristics.  It  is  not  the  characteristics,  in  other 
words,  which  are  acquired  from  the  influence  of  environ- 
ment that  are  transmitted  to  offspring,  but  the  character- 
istics that  arise  through  variations  in  the  germ,  caused  by 
forces  which  are  not  yet  well  understood.  Defects  that  are 
acquired  by  the  individual  in  his  lifetime,  in  other  words, 
will  not  be  transmitted;  but  the  defects  that  arise  through 
accident  or  other  means  in  the  germ  are  transmitted.  This 
being  so,  it  follows  that  acquired  pauperism  or  dependence 
is  not  transmitted  but  only  the  pauperism  which  rests  upon 
congenital  defects.  This  is  illustrated  by  the  case  of  the 
deaf.  Deaf-mutes  are  of  two  sorts:  persons  who  are  born 
deaf,  or  the  congenital  deaf-mutes,  and  persons  who  become 
deaf-mutes  through  diseases  affecting  the  ear  in  early  child- 
hood. These  latter  are  styled  adventitious  deaf-mutes. 
Now  when  congenital  deaf-mutes  marry,  they  show  a 
strong  tendency  to  transmit  their  defect  to  offspring,  but 
the  children  of  adventitious  deaf-mutes  are  normal.  Dr. 
Fay,  in  his  investigations  into  the  marriages  of  the  deaf 
in  the  United  States,  shows  that  only  0.3  per  cent  of  the 
children  born  from  the  marriages  of  persons  adventitiously 


316  POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

deaf  and  having  no  deaf  relatives  are  born  deaf;  while 
on  the  other  hand,  30.3  per  cent  of  the  children  born  from 
the  marriages  of  persons  congenitally  deaf,  both  parents 
having  deaf  relatives,  are  born  deaf.  In  other  words,  the 
number  of  deaf-mutes  born  where  both  parents  are  con- 
genitally deaf  and  have  deaf  relatives  is  one  hundred  times 
greater  than  where  both  parents  are  adventitiously  deaf 
and  have  no  deaf  relatives.  This  is  pretty  conclusive  proof 
that  it  is  only  the  congenital  defects  which  are  trans- 
missible, but  these  are  so  highly  transmissible  that  they 
may  express  themselves  in  pauperism  from  generation  to 
generation. 

The  marriage  of  all  persons  in  whom  there  is  an  hereditary 
taint  of  feeble-mindedness,  insanity,  epilepsy,  and  the  like 
ought,  therefore,  to  be  forbidden  by  law.  But  unless  these 
defective  classes  were  segregated  in  institutions,  the  only 
result  of  this  might  be  to  increase  illegitimacy;  therefore, 
any  step  in  eradicating  degeneracy  and  pauperism  must 
look  to  the  isolation  and  custodial  care  through  life  of  the 
hopelessly  defective  classes.  All  this  gives  point  to  our 
conclusion  that  poverty  and  pauperism  have  roots  which 
are  quite  independent  of  defects  in  economic  conditions, 
and  that,  until  heredity  itself  can  be  controlled,  we  cannot 
expect  to  eliminate  poverty  entirely. 

Proposed  Remedies  for  Poverty  and  Pauperism.  —  The 
scientific  remedies  for  poverty  and  pauperism,  that  is,  the 
scientific  methods  of  dealing  with  the  various  dependent 
classes  and  of  preventing  their  existence,  now  form  the 
subject-matter  of  a  great  independent  science,  the  science 
of  philanthropy,  which,  as  we  have  already  seen,  may  be 
considered  a  branch  of  applied  sociology.  We  have  not 


POVERTY   AND    PAUPERISM  317 

room  in  this  book  to  discuss  adequately  these  remedies,  but 
we  may  call  the  attention  of  the  student  again  to  the  vast 
literature  existing  upon  the  subject,  and  may  point  out 
the  trend  of  modern  scientific  philanthropy  in  developing 
scientific  methods  for  removing  the  causes  of  dependence 
and  of  preventing  the  existence  of  the  various  dependent 
classes. 

As  we  have  already  seen,  poverty  is  an  economic  ex- 
pression of  biological  or  psychological  defects  of  the  indi- 
vidual on  the  one  hand,  and  of  a  faulty  social  and  industrial 
organization  on  the  other  hand.  This  implies  that  the 
remedies  must  be  along  the  lines  of  the  biological  and 
psychological  adjustment  of  the  individual  and  of  the 
correction  of  the  faults  in  social  organization. 

Where  biological  defects  of  the  individual  are  the  cause 
of  dependence,  we  have  just  implied  that,  unless  these 
defects  are  relatively  superficial,  the  scientific  policy  for 
treating  these  classes  of  defective  individuals  would  be 
that  of  segregation  in  institutions.  The  feeble-minded, 
the  chronic  insane,  the  chronic  epileptic,  and  other  hope- 
lessly defective  persons,  in  other  words,  should  be  perma- 
nently kept  in  institutions  where  tender  and  humane  care 
should  be  provided,  but  in  such  a  way  that  they  will 
not  reproduce  their  kind  and  burden  future  generations. 
The  policy  of  segregating  the  hopelessly  defective  is  one  of 
the  most  scientifically  approved  policies  of  modern  philan- 
thropy. In  this  way,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  reproduc- 
tion of  unfit  elements  in  society  might  be  lessened,  and  the 
spread  of  degeneracy  checked.  In  the  case  of  slightly 
defective  adults,  such  as  the  congenitally  deaf  and  the 
congenitally  blind,  it  is  difficult  to  say  exactly  what  the 


318  POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

policy  should  be.  It  would  seem  that  many  of  these 
persons  may  be  relatively  adjusted  to  free  social  life, 
although  if  they  marry  and  have  offspring  we  know,  if 
their  defect  is  congenital,  that  a  certain  proportion  of 
the  offspring,  according  to  Mendel's  law,  will  inherit  the 
defect. 

In  the  case  of  those  individuals  whose  dependence  is 
due  to  psychological  defects,  or  defective  character,  it  is 
evident  that  we  have  a  different  problem.  Here,  in  gen- 
eral, the  wise  policy  would  seem  to  be,  not  to  segregate, 
but  to  overcome  the  defective  character.  Psychological 
defects,  we  know,  are  much  more  frequently  acquired  than 
biological  defects  and  much  more  easily  remedied.  The 
work  of  scientific  philanthropy  in  dealing  with  this  class  of 
individuals  must  be,  therefore,  a  work  of  remedying  de- 
fects in  individual  character.  This  is,  perhaps,  best  done 
through  personal  relations  between  the  dependent  person 
and  those  who  may  help  him.  Defective  character  is,  on  the 
whole,  therefore,  best  remedied  by  such  means  as  education, 
religious  influences,  friendly  visiting,  and  the  like.  The 
class  of  dependents  whose  condition  is  due  to  defective 
character  may  be  on  the  whole,  therefore,  best  treated 
outside  of  institutions,  and  probably  better  through  volun- 
tary private  charity  than  through  public  relief  systems. 

There  remains  another  class  of  dependents  whose  con- 
dition is  not  due  either  to  biological  nor  to  psychological 
defects  in  themselves,  but  to  faulty  social  and  industrial 
conditions.  For  these,  the  best  method  of  treatment 
consists  in  remedying  the  faulty  conditions  or  in  remov- 
ing them,  if  possible,  from  them.  This  means  that,  in 
many  cases,  society  must  provide  pensions,  insurance 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  319 

against  accident  and  sickness,  legislation  to  check  social 
abuses,  and,  above  all,  proper  facilities  for  education. 
Here  comes  in  the  need  of  child-labor  legislation,  of  better 
housing,  of  industrial  insurance,  of  industrial  education, 
and  the  like. 

In  the  light  of  these  principles,  let  us  review  very 
briefly  the  different  methods  of  dealing  with  dependent 
classes  at  the  present  time. 

Public  and  Private  Outdoor  Relief.  By  outdoor  relief 
we  mean  relief  given  to  the  poor  outside  of  an  institution. 
Usually,  outdoor  relief  refers  simply  to  the  public  relief 
of  dependents  outside  of  institutions,  but  we  shall  use 
the  phrase  to  cover  both  public  and  private  relief.  It  is 
evident  from  what  has  already  been  said  that  the  class 
of  persons  to  whom  this  form  of  relief  is  appropriate  are 
those  in  temporary  distress,  whose  condition  of  depend- 
ence is  not  a  permanent  one  and,  therefore,  usually  those 
whose  condition  is  due  either  to  defective  personal  char- 
acter or  to  faulty  social  organization.  If  the  temporary 
dependence  is  due  to  defective  personal  character,  it  is 
evident  that  the  aid  may  be  so  given,  if  given  wisely,  as 
to  stimulate  the  overcoming  of  the  moral  defect.  Hence 
the  need  of  carefully  planned  measures  of  relief  in  all 
such  cases.  Hence,  also,  the  need  of  the  friendly  visitor, 
who  by  personal  contact  with  such  a  family  will  help  them 
to  become  socially  adjusted.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
temporarily  dependent  person  is  simply  a  victim  of  cir- 
cumstances, there  is,  then,  also,  the  need  of  wise  charity 
in  order  to  overcome  those  adverse  circumstances  without 
impairing  the  character  of  the  individual  who  is  helped 
by  destroying  his  self-respect  and  the  like. 


320  POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM 

It  is  evident  that  the  task  of  relieving  temporarily 
dependent  persons  outside  of  institutions  is  a  delicate 
and  difficult  one,  and  requires  carefully  trained  workers 
to  do  it  successfully.  For  this  reason,  many  have  argued 
that  outdoor  relief  should  not  be  undertaken  by  the  state 
in  any  of  its  branches,  such  as  the  city  or  county.  In 
general,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  private  society  is, 
in  many  cases,  naturally  better  fitted  to  accomplish  this 
delicate  and  difficult  task  of  restoring  the  temporarily  de- 
pendent person.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  said 
that  the  whole  matter  is  simply  a  question  of  adminis- 
tration. Private  societies  may  be  quite  as  lax  and  un- 
scientific in  their  charity  as  the  state,  and  it  is  conceivable 
that  the  state  can  develop  a  system  of  outdoor  relief 
which  will  be  administered  by  experts  quite  as  carefully 
as  any  private  organization  could  administer  it.  Indeed, 
this  is  what  has  been  practically  done  in  Germany  under 
the  Elberfeldt  System,  which  is  a  state  system  for  dis- 
pensing outdoor  relief  to  the  temporarily  indigent.  In 
the  United  States,  however,  this  work  of  relieving  the 
temporarily  dependent  in  their  own  homes  has  been,  in 
our  large  cities,  undertaken  with  great  success  by  the 
charity  organization  societies,  which,  in  general,  do  the 
work  with  such  thoroughness  as  to  obviate  the  necessity 
for  public  outdoor  relief  in  our  large  cities. 

State  Charitable  Institutions.  Indoor  relief,  or  relief 
within  institutions,  for  the  permanently  dependent  classes 
is  probably  best  undertaken  by  the  state.  Originally, 
the  only  institution  of  this  sort  was  the  almshouse  or 
the  poor  house;  but  with  the  development  of  our  complex 
civilization  many  of  the  permanently  dependent  have  been 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  321 

provided  for  in  other  institutions  than  the  almshouse,  and 
it  would  seem  that  ultimately  all  the  permanently  dependent 
would  be  cared  for  in  specialized  state  institutions.  Thus, 
the  permanently  dependent,  through  various  sorts  of  de- 
fects, such  as  the  feeble-minded,  chronic  epileptic,  chronic 
insane,  and  the  like,  are  properly  cared  for  in  institutions 
especially  provided  for  the  purpose  by  the  state  and  manned 
by  experts.  Into  the  details  of  public  care  of  the  unfit 
and  defective  of  various  types  it  is  not  necessary  to  go 
further  than  to  say  that  such  public  care  should  be  of  the 
most  scientific  character,  and  with  the  double  aim  of  re- 
claiming all  those  that  can  be  reclaimed,  and  of  pro- 
viding permanently  tender  and  humane  care  for  those 
who  cannot  be  fitted  for  free  social  life.  State  institutions 
then,  should  be  manned  by  experts,  and  their  activities 
should  be  coordinated  by  some  central  board.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  principle,  it  would  seem  that  the  best 
state  policy  would  be  to  provide  expert  commissions  for 
the  care  of  different  classes,  such  as  the  insane,  and  the 
like,  and  a  supervisory  board  to  watch  over  the  work  of 
these  commissions  and  the  institutions. 

Dependent  Children.  The  care  of  dependent  children 
is  manifestly  one  of  the  most  important  forms  of  remedial 
philanthropic  work,  for  it  is  manifest  that  the  dependent 
child  will  make  a  dependent  adult  unless  proper  measures 
are  taken  to  secure  his  adjustment  to  the  social  life. 
The  dependent  child  is  rarely  biologically  defective.  The 
problem  is,  usually,  in  his  case,  the  development  of  char- 
acter under  proper  social  conditions.  For  this  reason, 
both  the  state  and  private  societies  have  claimed  the 
field  of  care  of  dependent  children.  While  private  societies 


322  POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM 

have  accomplished  in  this  respect  some  of  the  most  notable 
work,  it  would  seem,  however,  that  the  work  is  one  which 
properly  belongs  to  the  state  in  its  capacity  of  legal  guar- 
dian of  all  dependent  children.  The  state,  through  a  prop- 
erly organized  system  of  child  helping,  could  conceivably 
guarantee  that  every  neglected  and  dependent  child  should 
have  normal  opportunities  to  become  adjusted  to  the 
social  life.  The  system  in  the  state  of  Michigan,  with  its 
Public  School  for  Dependent  Children  at  Coldwater,  and 
its  plan  of  placing  these  children,  after  a  few  months,  in 
good  homes,  is  a  system  which  cannot  receive  too  high 
commendation.  In  general,  it  is  practically  agreed  by 
experts  that  the  dependent  child  cannot  be  well  adjusted 
to  the  social  life  by  being  reared  in  an  institution,  but  that 
the  better  plan  is  to  find  suitable  homes  in  which  these  chil- 
dren can  be  placed  and  reared  under  state  supervision.  In 
this  way,  practically  every  dependent  child  can  be  guaran- 
teed a  good  chance  in  life.  In  the  United  States,  private 
societies  called  "  Childrens'  Home  Societies "  are  also 
doing  this  work  with  great  success. 

Public  and  Private  Charity.  As  has  already  been  indi- 
cated, the  ordinary  line  to  be  observed  between  private 
charity  and  public  relief  is  that  to  private  charity  should 
be  given  the  more  delicate  and  difficult  tasks,  such  as 
readjusting  the  temporarily  dependent  persons,  the  care 
of,  in  some  cases,  dependent  children  and  the  like,  while 
to  public  charity  should  be  given  the  cases  which  need 
permanent  relief  in  institutions.  This  is  only  a  conven- 
tional line,  however,  between  private  charity  and  public 
relief.  As  has  already  been  pointed  out,  the  state  can 
conceivably,  also,  undertake  the  more  delicate  and  difficult 


POVERTY  AND   PAUPERISM  323 

tasks  of  charitable  aid,  and  probably  it  should  do  so  as 
rapidly  as  it  demonstrates  its  fitness  to  undertake  this 
work,  as  the  state,  when  once  it  has  achieved  certain  stand- 
ards, is  a  more  certain  and  reliable  agency  than  private 
institutions  or  societies.  But  there  is  in  philanthropic 
work,  a  large  place  for  the  private  society  or  institution. 
There  will  probably  always  be  debatable  cases  which  may 
better  be  looked  after  by  private  agencies  than  by  public. 
There  is,  therefore,  in  every  well-developed  community, 
room  for  both  public  and  private  agencies,  although  there 
should  be  close  cooperation  where  both  exist  one  with  the 
other.  The  church,  through  all  its  history,  has  undertaken 
philanthropic  work  with  notable  success,  and  it  would  be 
regrettable  if  the  philanthropic  activities  of  the  church 
were  to  cease  at  this  time,  when  they  are  needed  as  never 
before,  in  spite  of  the  large  development  of  public  philan- 
thropy. Church  charity  should,  however,  be  made  as 
scientific  as  any  other  form  of  charity,  and  should  be  care- 
fully coordinated  with  the  work  of  the  state  and  other 
secular  agencies.  Among  the  secular  agencies  we  have 
already  mentioned  the  charity  organization  society  as 
typifying  in  many  ways  the  highest  type  of  philanthropic 
activity  of  the  present.  It  would  seem  that  this  society, 
organizing  as  it  does  all  the  philanthropic  forces  and 
agencies  of  the  community,  could  scarcely  be  displaced  by 
state  activity;  and  that  there  would  remain  to  this  society, 
as  well  as  many  other  private  philanthropic  societies,  a 
very  large  field  of  activity  in  the  future.  State  activity 
in  the  field  of  charity  is,  therefore,  to  be  encouraged,  but 
it  must  not  be  supposed  that  such  activity  can  take  the 
place  of  private  charity. 


324  POVERTY   AND   PAUPERISM 

Preventive  Agencies.  A  very  large  task  for  both  private 
societies  and  the  state  is  to  be  found  in  the  field  of  pre- 
vention. This  field  is  so  broad,  however,  that  we  cannot 
attempt  to  even  mention  the  many  different  movements 
alone  which  characterize  our  present  social  development. 
Such  are  the  movements  for  better  housing,  for  better 
sanitation,  for  purer  food,  for  juster  economic  conditions, 
for  the  prevention  of  disease,  and  the  like.  The  main 
thing  to  be  said  with  respect  to  these  movements  is  that 
they  need  to  be  guided  by  the  larger  social  view,  they  need 
synthesis  in  order  that  they  may  work  toward  a  common 
goal,  and  in  harmony,  also,  with  the  activities  of  the  state. 
In  the  field  of  prevention  the  state  has  much  to  do,  espe- 
cially in  forwarding  education  along  lines  of  social  need  and 
in  creating  juster  economic  conditions. 

We  may,  perhaps,  sum  up  this  chapter  by  saying  that 
it  is  evident  that  the  cure  of  poverty  is  not  to  be  sought 
merely  in  certain  economic  rearrangements,  but  in  scien- 
tific control  of  the  whole  life  process  of  human  society. 
This  means  that,  in  order  to  get  rid  of  poverty,  the  defects 
in  education,  in  government,  in  religion  and  morality,  hi 
philanthropy,  and  even  in  physical  heredity,  must  be  got 
rid  of.  Of  course,  this  can  only  be  done  when  there  is  a 
scientific  understanding  of  the  conditions  necessary  for  nor- 
mal human  social  life.  What  some  of  these  requirements 
for  a  normal  life  are  will  be  seen  in  a  subsequent  chapter, 
and  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  in  conclusion  that  the  wisest 
measures  for  removing  pauperism  will  be  directed  toward 
the  prevention  of  its  causes  rather  than  toward  the 
reclaiming  of  those  who  have  already  been  caught  in  its 
meshes. 


POVERTY  AND  PAUPERISM  325 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

DEVINE,  Misery  and  Its  Causes,  Chap.  I. 
ELLWOOD,  The  Social  Problem,  Chap.  IV. 
WARNER,  American  Charities,  Third  Revised  Edition.  Chaps.  III-VII.. 

For  more  extended  reading: 
DUGDALE,  The  Jukes". 
DEVINE,  Principles  of  Relief. 
FAIRCHILD,  Applied  Sociology. 
GODDARD,  The  Kallikak  Family". 

HENDERSON,  Dependent,  Defective  and  Delinquent  Classes. 
HENDERSON,  Preventive  Agencies  and  Methods. 
HUNTER,  Poverty. 

MANGOLD,  Problems  of  Child  Welfare. 
NEARING,  Social  Adjustment. 
PARMELEE,  Poverty  and  Social  Progress. 
RICHMOND,  Social  Diagnosis. 
ROWNTREE,  Poverty:  a  Study  of  Town  Life. 
SMITH,  Social  Pathology. 

Proceedings  of  the  National  Conference  of  Social  Work. 
The  Survey  (Periodical). 


CHAPTER  XIV 

CRIME 

THE  problem  of  crime  is  one  of  the  great  problems  of 
social  pathology.  There  have  been  developed,  in  order  to 
deal  with  this  problem  scientifically,  a  number  of  subsidiary 
sciences,  especially  Criminology  and  Penology,  which  are 
sciences  dealing  with  the  causes,  nature,  and  treatment  of 
crime.  We  cannot,  therefore,  deal  with  this  problem  ade- 
quately in  this  chapter,  but  again  must  refer  the  student 
to  the  literature  on  the  subject. 

The  Definition  of  Crime.  —  The  best  definition  of  crime 
and  the  simplest  is  that  it  is  a  violation  of  law.  It  is  evident 
from  this  definition  that  crime  is  primarily  a  legal  matter; 
and  as  laws  vary  from  age  to  age  and  from  country  to 
country,  so  too  the  definition  of  crime  varies.  Neverthe- 
less, because  crime  is  a  variable  quantity  that  does  not  make 
it  impossible  of  scientific  treatment;  for  law  itself  is  only 
one  aspect  or  phase  of  the  social  life,  namely,  that  which 
has  to  do  with  the  control  of  conduct  through  organized 
social  authority.  Therefore,  while  crime  is  primarily  a 
legal  matter,  it  is  also  a  social  matter  and  has  at  the  same 
time  psychological  and  biological  implications.  While 
crime  is  an  expression  of  social  maladjustment  defined 
by  the  law  differently  under  different  circumstances,  it 
nevertheless  has  psychological  and  biological  roots;  and 
these  we  must  take  into  account  in  a  scientific  study  of 
crime. 

326 


CRIME  327 

The  simplest  and  best  definition  of  the  criminal  accord- 
ingly is  a  violator  of  the  law.  However,  because  the 
criminal  lacks  social  adjustment  the  causes  of  this  lack  of 
adjustment  are  very  often  in  certain  psychological  and 
biological  conditions  of  the  individual.  While  the  criminal 
is  denned  by  the  law  differently  from  age  to  age,  he  is  never- 
theless under  all  circumstances  the  socially  peculiar  and 
sometimes  the  psychologically  and  biologically  peculiar 
person.  Under  all  circumstances  he  is  a  variation  from  his 
group;  and  whether  the  causes  of  his  variation  are  psycho- 
logical or  biological  is  the  problem  that  concerns  us. 

But  in  the  group  of  socially  maladjusted  persons  whom 
we  call  criminals  are  many  classes  and  it  is  necessary  to  note 
the  chief  of  these  classes  before  we  can  understand  the 
many  causes  of  crime. 

The  classification  of  criminals.  The  legal  classification, 
of  criminals  according  to  the  nature  of  their  crime  is  mani- 
festly of  no  use  for  scientific  purposes.  What  we  need  is 
a  classification  of  criminals  according  to  their  own  peculiar 
nature.  Inasmuch  as  the  nature  and  conduct  of  a  criminal 
person  is  largely  a  matter  of  his  psychology  the  most  scienti- 
fic classification  of  criminals  must  be  upon  a  psychological 
basis;  and  a  simple  psychological  classification  can  be  made 
upon  the  basis  of  habit,  that  is,  as  to  whether  the  basis  of 
crime  is  inborn,  acquired,  or  just  forming.  According  to 
this  classification  there  are  three  main  classes  of  criminals: 
(i)  The  defective  or  "born"  criminal.  This  is  a  person  in 
whom  the  tendency  to  crime  is  due  to  hereditary  mental 
defect.  The  most  common  type  of  the  defective  criminal  is 
the  criminal  imbecile  or  moron.  Here  belong  also  the 
criminal  insane,  when  insanity  is  due  to  hereditary  defects. 


328  CRIME 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  defective  criminal  class  bio- 
logical causes  of  crime  predominate.  This  class  is  how- 
ever relatively  small  among  the  general  criminal  class, 
and  it  is  estimated  by  experts  that  it  constitutes 
not  more  than  from  15  per  cent  to  35  per  cent  of 
our  prison  population.  (2)  The  habitual  criminal.  The 
habitual  criminal  is  a  normal  person  who  has  acquired 
the  tendency  to  crime  from  his  environment.  The 
most  marked  type  of  the  habitual  criminal  is  the  pro- 
fessional criminal,  who  is  frequently  a  person  above  the 
average  in  ability  and  who  deliberately  chooses  a  career  of 
crime,  taking  the  risks  of  his  calling.  It  is  evident  that  the 
professional  criminal  class  is  the  most  dangerous  class  of 
criminals  with  whom  society  has  to  deal.  A  more  common 
type  of  habitual  criminal,  however,  is  the  occasional  habitual 
criminal,  a  .weak  person  who  drifts  into  crime  through 
temptation  and  who  has  not  strength  of  character  enough  to 
throw  off  the  habit.  It  is  estimated  that  habitual  criminals 
of  both  types  mentioned  constitute  from  30  per  cent  to 
40  per  cent  of  our  prison  population.  (3)  The  single  offender. 
The  single  offender  is  a  normal  person  who  commits  only 
a  single  crime  through  some  sudden  stress  or  temptation, 
but  lives  ever  after  a  law-abiding  life.  The  two  types  of 
the  single  offender  are  the  criminal  by  passion  and  the 
accidental  criminal.  The  criminal  by  passion  is  a  moral, 
and  oftentimes  a  conscientious,  person  who  commits  a 
crime  through  some  sudden  stress  of  passion,  under  great 
provocation.  The  accidental  criminal,  on  the  other  hand, 
is  the  weak  type  of  moral  person  who  yields  once  through 
some  sudden  temptation,  but  who  regrets  it  ever  afterward. 
It  is  estimated  that  single  offenders  constitute  from  30 


CRIME  329 

per  cent  to  40  per  cent  of  our  prison  population.  Strictly 
speaking,  they  are  only  legal  criminals,  and  not  criminals  in 
the  sociological  sense,  being  relatively  moral  and  law- 
abiding  citizens  whose  variation  from  the  normal  is  con- 
fined to  some  single  offense.  Nevertheless,  single  offenders 
constitute,  as  we  have  already  seen,  a  very  considerable 
proportion  of  our  prison  population. 

This  classification  of  criminals  is  very  important  both  in 
studying  the  causes  of  crime  and  in  devising  practical  meas^ 
ures  for  dealing  with  the  criminai  class;  for  the  defective 
criminal,  the  habitual  criminal,  and  the  single  offender 
manifestly  need  very  different  methods  of  treatment. 
One  of  the  gravest  faults  of  the  criminal  law  and  of  penal 
institutions  hitherto  is  that  they  have  not  provided  lor  the 
different  treatment  of  different  classes  of  criminals. 

The  Extent  of  Crime  in  the  United  States.  —  According 
to  the  United  States  census  there  were  in  prisons  on  Jan- 
uary i,  1910,  a  total  of  111,498  prisoners  serving  sentences 
or  serving  out  fines.  Of  this  number  105,362  were  males 
and  6,136  were  females;  again  72,797  were  whites,  and 
38,701  were  colored.  Classified  according  to  the  prisons  in 
which  they  were  found,  58,800  were  in  state  penitentiaries, 
9071  were  in  state  reformatories,  35,008  were  in  county 
jails,  and  8619  were  in  city  prisons.  These  were  only  the 
persons  serving  prison  sentences.  An  unknown  number 
were  in  county  and  city  jails  awaiting  trial  and  out  on  bail. 
Again,  it  must  be  remembered  that  this  was  simply  the 
prison  population  on  a  single  day,  January  i,  1910.  During 
the  year  1910,  479,787  persons  were  committed  to  prison. 

In  addition  to  the  111,498  prisoners  there  were  24,974 
juvenile  delinquents  confined  in  special  reformatories  for 


33°  CRIME 

juveniles  on  January  i,  1910.  Of  these  19,062  were  boys 
and  5912  girls;  21,044  wei>e  white  and  3855  negroes.  During 
the  year  1910  there  were  493,934  persons  committed  to 
prisons  or  to  juvenile  reformatories  upon  sentence  or  for 
non-payment  of  fines —  14,147  being  juvenile  delinquents. 
Omitting  those  committed  to  prison  for  non-payment  of 
fines,  there  were  200,873  committed  during  1910  upon 
sentence.  During  the  year  1904  the  number  committed 
upon  sentence  was  149,691,  while  81,772  prisoners  were 
serving  sentences  on  June  30,  1904. 

These  prison  statistics,  however,  give  us  little  idea  of 
the  actual  amount  of  crime  in  the  United  States,  because 
they  include  only  the  persons  committed  to  prison  to 
serve  sentences  and  do  not  include  the  vast  number  who 
escape  the  meshes  of  the  law  or  who  simply  pay  fines, 
or  whose  sentences  are  suspended.  It  is  estimated  by 
competent  authorities,  basing  their  estimate  upon  the 
number  of  known  convictions  of  crime  in  certain  large 
cities,  that  there  are  not  less  than  1,000,000  convictions  for 
crime  annually,  in  the  United  States  • —  including,  of 
course,  convictions  for  both  felonies  and  misdemeanors. 
That  this  is  not  an  excessive  estimate  may  be  indicated 
by  the  fact  that  in  the  state  of  New  York  alone  in  1910, 
there  were  95,444  persons  committed  to  prison  (of  whom 
48,270  were  committed  after  conviction  in  the  courts)  while 
in  1915  the  total  number  committed  was  121,110. 

All  these  figures,  however,  fail  to  give  us  any  very  correct 
idea  of  the  amount  of  serious  crimes  in  the  United  States  — 
the  prison  statistics  because  they  understate  the  matter, 
the  statistics  of  convictions  because  they  overstate.     A 
peculiarity  about  serious   crimes   in   the   United   States, 


CRIME  331 

it  must  be  remembered,  is  that  so  many  persons  escape 
through  the  meshes  of  the  law,  and  this  is  particularly 
true  in  the  case  of  the  characteristic  American  crime  of 
homicide.  Our  census  authorities  estimate  that  only 
about  one  third  of  those  guilty  of  this  crime  are  convicted 
in  our  courts.  Thus  the  census  showed  that  in  1910  there 
were  2902  persons  in  the  United  States  committed  to  prison 
upon  sentence  for  homicide,  while  the  estimated  total 
number  of  homicides  committed  was  about  9000  (the  Chi- 
cago Tribune  statistics  give  8975)  that  year.  For  a  number 
of  years  the  death  rate  from  homicide  has  increased  in  the 
registration  area.  Thus  it  was  5  per  100,000  population  in 
1906,  and  7.1  per  100,000  in  1916,  but  this  increase  was  due 
largely  to  the  addition  to  the  registration  area  of  Southern 
and  Western  states  where  the  homicide  rate  is  high.  How- 
ever, the  homicide  rate  in  thirty-one  of  the  largest  cities 
rose  from  5  per  100,000  in  the  decade  1895-1904  to  8.1  in 
the  decade  1905-1914.  The  homicide  rate  varied  in  the 
United  States  hi  1916  all  the  way  from  i  per  100,000  in  the 
rural  districts  of  Maine  to  33.5  in  the  cities  of  Montana. 
Among  the  negroes  of  the  cities  of  South  Carolina  the 
homicide  rate  was  47.6  in  1916.  In  individual  cities  of  the 
registration  area  the  rate  was  much  higher,  being  highest 
in  1915  in  Memphis,  Tenn.,  where  the  rate  was  85.9.  The 
number  of  homicides  is  far  greater  hi  the  United  States 
than  in  other  civilized  countries,  with  the  exception  of  Italy, 
Spain,  and  some  other  countries  of  the  Mediterranean 
region.  England,  for  example,  had  only  two  hundred  and 
eighty-seven  cases  of  homicide  in  1909  as  compared  with 
our  about  nine  thousand,  although  England's  population 
was  about  35,000,000  as  against  over  90,000,000  for  the 


332  CRIME 

United  States.  The  greatest  number  of  these  homicides 
take  place  in  the  Southern  and  Western  states,  Montana 
leading,  according  to  the  statistics  of  1916,  with  South  Caro- 
lina second.  This  suggests  that  to  some  extent  our  high 
homicide  rate  is  due  to  the  survival  of  frontier  conditions 
in  a  large  number  of  the  states,  although  it  is  probably  even 
more  due  to  American  individualism  and  lawlessness,  the 
tendency  of  every  man  to  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  amount  of  serious  crime 
in  the  United  States  is  relatively  high,  although  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  serious  crimes  against  property 
are  proportionate  to  the  serious  crimes  against  persons. 

The  Cost  of  Crime  in  the  United  States.  The  Hon.  Eugene 
Smith,  a  lawyer  of  New  York  city,  in  a  paper  read  before 
the  National  Prison  Association  in  1900,  estimated  that 
the  criminal  population  of  the  United  States  costs  not  less 
than  $600,000,000  annually.  He  based  his  estimate  upon 
the  cost  of  crime  in  New  York  city  and  other  large  cities 
of  the  country.  He  found  that  the  probable  expenses 
of  government  in  the  United  States  attributable  to  crime, 
that  is,  the  cost  of  police,  criminal  courts,  prisons,  and  other 
institutions  connected  with  the  prevention  and  repression 
of  crime,  amounted  to  about  $200,000,000  per  year.  This 
is  the  amount  paid  by  the  taxpayers  for  the  repression  and 
extirpation  of  crime  annually.  In  addition  there  is  the 
cost  of  the  criminal  class  through  the  destruction  of 
property,  their  plunder,  and  the  like.  Mr.  Smith  estimated 
that  there  were  no  less  than  250,000  dangerous  criminals 
in  the  United  States  and  that  each  such  criminal  cost  the 
people  of  the  United  States,  on  the  average  $1600  annually. 
Accordingly,  the  250,000  criminals  would  cost  a  total  of 


CRIME 


333 


$400,000,000  annually,  which,  added  to  the  $200,000,000 
paid  out  in  taxes  for  the  repression  of  the  criminal  class 
and  protection  against  crime,  makes  a  total  of  $600,000,000 
paid  out  every  year  by  the  people  of  the  United  States  as 
the  cost  of  supporting  the  criminal  class.  While  this 
figure  seems  enormous,  it  is  now  at  this  date  probably 
an  underestimate  rather  than  an  overestimate  of  the 
total  cost  of  crime.  We  may  compare  the  amount  with 
certain  other  figures.  The  cost  of  the  public  school  system 
in  the  United  States  in  1916  was  about  $600,000,000;  the 
annual  value  of  our  wheat  crop  and  of  our  cotton  crop, 
1912-1916,  averaged  about  $800,000,000.  It  is  evident 
that  the  problem  of  crime  is  worthy  of  serious  study  even 
from  a  financial  standpoint  alone. 

Is  Crime  Increasing?  How  we  answer  this  question 
will,  of  course,  depend  upon  the  length  of  time  considered. 
We  have  no  statistics  going  back  further  than  fifty  years  in 
this  country.  Moreover,  it  is  entirely  possible  to  hold 
that  while  crime  has  decreased  during  the  historic  era 
among  civilized  peoples,  it  has  increased  during  the  last 
twenty-five  or  fifty  years.  All  .statistics  of  crime  in  the 
United  States  seem  to  show  that  it  has  increased.  In 
1850  for  example,  the  number  of  prisoners  was  6737 
which  was  one  prisoner  to  every  3442  of  the  population. 
But  the  census  of  1850  was  seriously  defective,  and  we  would 
better  take  the  census  of  1860  as  the  basis  of  our  com- 
parison. In  1860  the  census  showed  a  total  prison  popu- 
lation of  19,086,  which  was  one  prisoner  to  every  1647  of 
the  population.  In  1890  the  census  showed  82,329  pris- 
oners in  the  total  population,  which  was  one  in  every  757. 
In  other  words,  between  1860  and  1890  the  total  popu- 


334  CRIME 

lation  of  the  country  just  doubled,  while  the  number  of 
prisoners  quadrupled. 

The  value  of  these  statistics  has  often  been  questioned, 
but  it  has  been  questioned  chiefly  by  people  who  have  not 
taken  other  corroborative  evidence  into  account.  The 
chief  corroborating  evidence  is  to  be  found  in  the  statistics 
of  prisoners  in  our  state  prisons  from  1880  to  1910.  Now 
only  those  are  sent  to  state  prisons  who  are  guilty  of  felo- 
nies, and  the  length  of  term  of  sentence  in  our  state  prisons 
has  steadily  shortened  during  the  last  twenty-five  years, 
while  within  the  last  few  years  the  practice  of  suspending 
sentence  on  probation  for  first  felons  has  been  largely  in- 
troduced. We  should  expect,  therefore,  a  decrease  in  the 
state  prison  population  in  proportion  to  the  general  popula- 
tion. But  we  find  that  the  number  in  state  prisons  rose 
from  30,659  in  1880,  to  45,233  in  1890,  an  increase  of  47.5 
per  cent,  while  the  general  population  increased  only 
24.86  per  cent.  Again  the  number  rose  in  1910  to  67,871, 
an  increase  of  50  per  cent,  while  the  general  population 
increased  about  47  per  cent.  Apparently,  therefore, 
the  amount  of  serious  crime  in  the  United  States  increased 
more  rapidly  than  the  population  till  about  1890,  and  since 
then  has  stood  practically  stationary.  Corroborating 
evidence  is  also  found  in  the  statistics  of  negro  crime  (prob- 
ably the  main  element  in  the  increase) ,  which  increased  very 
rapidly  from  1870  to  1890.  Other  evidence  has  been  cited, 
but  the  statistics  of  our  state  penitentiaries  may  be  con- 
sidered conclusive  when  all  facts  are  taken  into  considera- 
tion.1 There  is  apparently  no  escape  from  the  conclusion 

1  See  the  writer's  article  on  this  question  in  the  Journal  of  Criminal  Law  and 
Criminology,  Vol.  I,  pp.  378-385;  also  an  article  in  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  754-769. 


CRIME  335 

that  serious  crime  during  the  last  sixty  years  has  increased 
more  rapidly  than  the  population. 

For  several  years  prior  to  the  Great  War  the  statistics  of 
most  European  countries  indicated  an  increase  in  minor 
offenses,  as  did  also  some  fragmentary  American  statistics. 
During  the  War,  however,  crime  decreased  in  most  of  the  bel- 
ligerent nations.  England  is  the  only  country  in  which  over 
a  long  term  of  years  there  has  been  apparently  a  decrease 
in  proportion  to  population  of  both  serious  crimes  and  minor 
offenses.  This  decrease  of  crime  in  England  must  be  attrib- 
uted largely  to  England's  excellent  prison  system,  and  also 
to  the  swiftness  and  certainty  of  English  courts  of  justice. 

The  Causes  of  Crime.  —  The  causes  of  crime  may  be 
classified  best,  as  we  classified  the  causes  of  poverty, 
into  objective  and  subjective.  Objective  causes  are  those 
outside  of  the  individual,  in  the  environment;  subjective 
causes  are  causes  in  the  individual,  whether  in  his  bodily 
make-up  or  his  mental  peculiarities. 

The  Objective  Causes  of  Crime.  The  objective  causes  of 
crime  may  be  divided  into  causes  in  the  physical  environ- 
ment and  causes  in  the  social  environment.  The  causes 
in  the  physical  environment  are  relatively  unimportant, 
but  are  worthy  of  note  as  showing  "how  many  various 
factors  enter  into  this  social  phenomenon  of  crime.  Climate 
and  season  seem  to  be  the  two  chief  physical  factors  that 
influence  crime;  and  in  connection  with  these  we  have  two 
general  rules,  abundantly  verified  by  statistics;  namely, 
crimes  against  the  person  are  more  numerous  in  southern 
climates  than  crimes  against  property;  and  again  crimes 
against  the  person  are  more  numerous  in  summer  than  in 
winter,  while  crimes  against  property  are  more  numerous 


336  CRIME 

in  winter  than  in  summer.  All  this  is  of  course  simply 
an  outcome  of  the  effect  of  climate  and  season  upon  general 
living  conditions. 

The  causes  of  crime  in  the  social  environment  are  of 
course  much  the  most  important  objective  causes  of 
crime,  and,  many  students  think,  altogether  the  most 
important  causes  of  crime  in  general.  Let  us  briefly  note 
some  of  the  more  important  social  conditions  that  give 
rise  to  crime. 

(i)  Conditions  connected  with  the  family  life  have  a 
great  influence  on  crime;  indeed,  inasmuch  as  the  family 
is  the  chief  agency  in  society  for  socializing  the  young, 
perhaps  domestic  conditions  are  more  important  in  the 
production  of  crime  than  any  other  set  of  causes.  We  can- 
not enter  into  the  discussion  of  the  matter  fully,  but  we 
have  already  seen  in  former  chapters  that  demoralized 
homes  contribute  an  undue  proportion  of  criminals.  It  is 
estimated  by  those  in  charge  of  reform  schools  for  delin- 
quent children  that  from  85  to  90  per  cent  of  the  children 
in  those  institutions  come  from  more  or  less  demoralized 
or  disrupted  families.  Illegitimate  children  notoriously 
drift  into  the  criminal  classes,  while  dependent  children 
who  grow  up  in  charitable  institutions  are  prone  also  to 
take  the  same  course.  Domestic  conditions  have  of  course 
an  influence  on  the  criminality  or  non-criminality  of 
adults.  This  is  best  shown  perhaps  by  the  fact  that  the 
great  proportion  of  criminals  in  our  prisons  are  unmarried 
persons.  Thus  the  United  States  prison  census  of  1910 
showed  that  68.6  per  cent  of  all  prisoners  were  single  per- 
sons. Statistics  from  other  countries  are  practically  the 
same.  This  means  that,  on  the  one  hand,  the  family  life 


CRIME  337 

is  a  preventive  of  crime,  and  on  the  other  that  the  socially 
abnormal  classes  who  drift  into  crime  are  not  apt  to  marry. 

(2)  Industrial  conditions  also  have  a  profound  influence 
upon   criminal   statistics.     Economic   crises,   hard   times, 
strikes,  lockouts,  are  all  productive  of  crime.     Quetelet, 
the   Belgian   statistician,   thought   that  the  general  rule 
could  be  laid  down  that,  as  the  price  of  food  increases, 
crimes   against   property   increase,  while    crimes   against 
persons  decrease.     At  any  rate,  increase  in  the  cost  of  the 
necessities  of  life  is  very  apt  to  increase  crimes  of  certain 
sorts. 

The  various  industrial  classes  show  a  different  ratio  of 
criminality.  In  general  among  industrial  classes  the  least 
crime  is  committed  by  the  agricultural  classes,  while  the 
most  crime  is  committed  by  the  unemployed  or  those  with 
no  occupation.  The  census  of  1910  showed  that  49.4  per 
cent  of  all  prisoners  committed  that  year  were  unskilled 
non-agricultural  laborers  or  persons  of  no  occupation. 

(3)  Urbanization  and  other  conditions  concerning  the 
distribution  and  density  of  the  population  have  an  in- 
fluence upon  crime.    In  general  there  is  more  crime  in  the 
cities  than  in  the  country  districts.     The  statistics  of  all 
civilized  countries  seem  to  show  about  twice  as  great  a 
percentage  of  crime  in  their  large  cities  as  in  the  rural 
districts. 

(4)  The  influence  of  race  and  nationality  seems  to  be 
marked  in   criminal   statistics.     We  have   already   noted 
that  the  ratio  of  criminality  among  the  negroes  in  the 
United  States  is  from  four  to  five  times  higher  than  among 
the  whites.    We  have  also  seen   that  among  our  recent 
immigrants  the  Southern  Italians  have  a  pronounced  tend- 


338  CRIME 

ency  to  crime,  especially  serious  crime.  Among  our  older 
immigrants  the  Irish,  on  the  other  hand,  owing  largely  to 
their  love  of  liquor,  have  a  pronounced  tendency  toward 
minor  offenses.  Even  in  1910,  29.9  per  cent  of  all  foreign- 
born  committed  to  prison  were  Irish,  while  the  Irish  consti- 
tuted but  i  o.i  per  cent  of  the  total  foreign-bom  population. 

(5)  Defects  in  government  and  law  are  among  the  most 
potent  causes  of  crime.    These  are  so  numerous  that  we 
cannot  attempt  even  to  mention  all.     It  is  obvious  that 
such  things  as  too  great  leniency  on  the  part  of  our  judges 
and  shortness  of  sentence  if  convicted;  difficulty  or  uncer- 
tainty in  securing  justice  in  criminal  courts;  costliness  of 
obtaining  justice  in  our  civil  courts;  bad  prison  systems 
in  which  first  offenders  and  hardened  criminals  mingle; 
lack  of  police  surveillance  of  habitual  criminals;  corrupt 
methods  of  appointing  the  police;  partisanship  in  the  ad- 
ministration of  government,   and  the  like,   all  conduce 
to  crime.    And  many  of  these  things,  we  may  add,  have 
been  especially  in  evidence  in  America. 

(6)  Educational  conditions  have  undoubtedly  a  great 
influence  upon  crime.     While  education  in  the  sense  of 
school  education  could  never  in  itself  stamp  out  crime, 
still    defective    educational    conditions    greatly    increase 
crime.    This  is  shown  sufficiently  by  the  fact  that  illiter- 
ates are  much  more  liable  to  commit  crime  than  those 
who  have  a  fair  education.     The  prison  census  of  1910 
showed  that  12.8  per  cent  of  the  prisoners  were  illiterate, 
while  only  8.2  per  cent  of  the  general  population  fifteen 
years  of  age  or  over  were  illiterate;  and  of  the  major 
offenders  a  still  higher  per  cent  were  illiterate. 

The  defects  in  our  educational  conditions  which  espe- 


CRIME  339 

daily  favor  the  development  of  crime  in  certain  classes  are 
chiefly:  lack  of  facilities  for  industrial  education,  lack  of 
physical  education,  and  lack  of  specific  moral  instruction. 
The  need  of  these  three  things  in  a  socialized  school  system 
need  not  here  be  more  than  emphasized. 

The  influence  of  the  press  as  a  popular  educator  must 
here  be  mentioned  as  one  of  the  important  stimuli  to 
crime  under  modern  conditions.  The  excessive  exploita- 
tion of  crimes  in  the  modern  sensational  press  no  doubt 
conduces  to  increase  criminality  in  certain  classes,  for  it 
has  been  demonstrated  that  crime  is  often  a  matter  of 
suggestion  or  imitation.  When  a  large  part  of  the  space 
in  our  daily  newspapers  is  taken  up  with  reports  of  crime 
and  immorality,  as  it  is  in  some  cases,  it  is  not  to  be  won- 
dered at  that  the  contagion  of  crime  is  sown  broadcast 
in  society. 

(7)  The  influence  of  certain  social  institutions  in  pro- 
ducing crime  must  be  mentioned.    Here  comes  in  especially 
the  lack  of  opportunities  for  wholesome  social  recreation 
among  our  poorer  classes,  particularly  in  our  large  cities. 
Lacking  these,  the  masses  resort  to  the  saloon,  gambling- 
houses,  cheap  music  and  dance  halls,  and  vulgar  theatrical 
entertainments  while  their  children  have  to  play  in  the 
streets.     The  influence  of  all  of  these  conditions  is  un- 
doubtedly to  spread  the  contagion  of  vice  and  crime. 

(8)  The  influence  of  manners  and  customs  upon  crime 
cannot  be  overlooked.    The  custom  in  certain  communi- 
ties, for  example,  of  carrying  concealed  weapons  undoubt- 
edly has  much  to  do  with  the  swollen  homicide  statistics  of 
the  United  States.    Vicious  and  corrupting  customs,  such 
as  compulsory  social  drinking,  and  the  like,  undoubtedly 


340  CRIME 

greatly  influence  crime.  Even  the  luxury  and  extrava- 
gance of  the  rich  might  easily  be  shown  to  have  a  demoral- 
izing effect,  both  upon  the  upper  and  the  lower  classes  of 
society. 

The  list  of  causes  of  crime  in  the  social  environment 
might  be  indefinitely  extended  until  the  student  would 
perhaps  think  that  practically  everything  was  a  cause  of 
crime  in  one  way  or  another;  and  it  is  true  that  everything 
that  depresses  men  in  society  is  a  cause  of  crime.  How- 
ever, if  the  student  has  gained  an  impression  of  the  great 
complexity  of  the  causes  of  crime,  that  is  the  main  thing. 

A  question  may  here  be  raised  whether  it  is  possible  to 
reduce  all  the  causes  of  crime  to  causes  in  the  social  environ- 
ment —  that  is,  all  subjective  causes  to  objective.  Many 
writers  have  contended  that  this  is  possible,  but  we  shall 
see  that  there  are  causes  in  heredity  and  causes  in  psycho- 
logical conditions,  to  say  nothing  of  some  possible  free 
will  in  individuals,  which  cannot  be  derived  from  social 
conditions  and  which  would  produce  crime  quite  independ- 
ent of  objective  social  conditions,  unless  these  subjective 
factors  were  also  controlled.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe 
that  a  perfectly  just  social  organization  which  did  not 
attempt  to  control  heredity  and  the  moral  character  of 
individuals  would  succeed  in  eliminating  crime.  On  the 
t  contrary,  biological  variation  alone  arising  from  influences 
independent  of  the  environment  would  produce  a  certain 
amount  of  crime.  Crime,  in  other  words,  is,  to  a  certain 
extent,  like  pauperism,  an  expression  of  the  elimination 
of  the  inferior  variants  in  society,  and  will  continue  to 
exist  as  long  as  we  allow  the  process  of  evolution  by  natural 
selection  to  go  on. 


CRIME  341 

Nevertheless,  it  is  true  in  a  certain  sense,  as  Lacassagne 
says,  that  "  every  society  has  the  criminals  it  deserves;" 
that  is,  every  society  could,  by  taking  proper  means,  practi- 
cally eliminate  crime  and  the  criminal  class.  This  would 
have  to  be  done,  however,  by  something  more  radical  than 
a  mere  reorganization  of  human  society  in  an  industrial' 
way.  Three  things  are  necessary  for  society  practically 
to  eliminate  crime:  first,  the  correction  of  defects  in  social 
conditions,  particularly  of  economic  evils  in  society; 
second,  the  proper  control  of  physical  heredity  by  a  rational 
system  of  eugenics;  third,  the  proper  education  and  train- 
ing of  every  child  for  social  life  from  infancy  up. 

The  Subjective  Causes  of  Crime.  In  order  to  see  all  that 
is  involved  in  the  above  program  let  us  study  somewhat 
the  subjective  causes  of  crime.  These  may  be  divided 
into  biological  and  psychological.  Among  the  biological 
causes  of  crime,  and  one  which  certainly  cannot  be  reduced 
to  the  environment,  is  sex.  As  we  have  already  seen,  crime 
is  a  social  phenomenon  which  is  chiefly  confined  to  the  male 
sex.  In  1910,  for  example,  94.5  per  cent  of  the  prison  popu- 
lation in  the  United  States  were  males,  and  in  the  statistics 
of  convictions  it  is  estimated  that  ninety-one  men  are  con- 
victed for  every  nine  women.  The  statistics  for  all  civilized 
countries  show  practically  the  same  conditions,  although  in 
most  European  countries  the  proportion  of  female  prisoners 
is  somewhat  higher,  owing,  undoubtedly,  to  certain  influ- 
ences in  the  social  environment. 

Another  subjective  factor  in  crime,  which  again  cannot 
be  reduced  to  environment,  is  age.  Practically  all  crime 
falls  in  the  active  period  of  life,  and  the  bulk  of  it  between 
the  ages  of  twenty-one  and  forty  years.  The  average  of 


342  CRIME 

men  in  our  state  penitentiaries  is  frequently  not  above 
twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  years. 

Other  subjective  biological  conditions  that  cause  crime 
may  be  summed  up  under  the  word  "degeneracy." 
These  abnormal  conditions,  however,  we  shall  examine 
later. 

Among  the  psychological  conditions  of  the  individual 
that  give  rise  to  crime  the  most  common  are  habits,  aims, 
and  ideals.  Of  peculiar  interest  among  personal  habits 
that  have  an  influence  upon  crime  is  intemperance,  and 
this  is  such  an  important  cause  of  crime  that  we  must 
stop  to  examine  it  in  some  detail.  It  is  often  said  that 
95  per  cent  of  the  crime  of  our  country  results  from  this 
cause  alone.  The  Committee  of  Fifty,  however,  investi- 
gated the  cases  of  13,402  convicts  with  reference  to  this 
matter,  and  found  that  intemperance  was  a  cause  of  crime 
in  the  cases  of  49.95  per  cent.  It  was  a  chief  cause  of 
crime,  however,  only  in  the  cases  of  31.18  per  cent.  In 
the  remaining  cases  the  intemperance  was  that  of  ances- 
tors or  associates.  Other  investigators  have  found  that 
intemperance  figures  as  a  cause  of  crime  in  from  60  to  80 
per  cent  of  the  cases,  but  these  investigations  were  not  so 
full  as  that  of  the  Committee  of  Fifty,  and  it  is  safer  to 
conclude,  for  the  present  at  least,  that  intemperance 
figures  as  a  cause  in  about  fifty  per  cent  in  the  cases  of 
serious  crime.  The  wonder  is  that  any  one  cause  could 
figure  in  so  many  cases  when  there  are  so  many  varied 
influences  in  society  depressing  men.  Of  course  intemper- 
ance can,  as  has  already  been  said,  in  large  part  be  ascribed 
to  the  influence  of  external  stimuli  in  the  environment, 
but  it  has  also  causes  in  the  biological  and  psychological 


CRIME  343 

make-up  of  certain  individuals  that  cannot  be  easily  re- 
duced to  environmental  factors. 

Influence  of  Physical  Degeneracy  upon  Crime.  By  de- 
generacy we  mean,  to  use  Morel's  definition,  "  a  morbid 
deviation  from  the  normal  type."  That  is,  degeneracy  is 
such  an  alteration  of  organic  structures  and  functions  that 
the  organism  becomes  incapable  of  adapting  itself  to  more 
or  less  complex  conditions.  Ordinary  forms  of  degeneracy 
that  are  well  recognized  are  feeble-mindedness,  chronic 
insanity,  chronic  epilepsy,  congenital  deaf-mutism,  habitual 
pauperism,  and  the  like.  Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
criminality  in  some  of  its  forms  is  related  to  these  func- 
tional forms  of  degeneracy.  Even  ordinary  people  have 
noticed  its  similarity  to  insanity,  while  Lombroso  has 
traced  an  elaborate  parallel  between  criminality  and  epi- 
lepsy. Without  accepting  extreme  views,  it  may  be  claimed 
that  criminality  is,  in  some  cases,  a  form  of  biological 
degeneracy  for  the  following  reasons: 

(1)  The  investigations  of  criminal  anthropologists  have 
established  the  fact  that  criminals  as  a  class  present  a 
much  larger  number  of  structural  and  functional  abnormal- 
ities than  does  the  average  man.     The  prisoners  in  our 
state  prisons,  for  example,  with  few  exceptions,  could  not 
measure  up  to  the  requirements  laid  down  by  the  United 
States  Army  authorities  for  the  enlistment  of  soldiers. 

(2)  Investigations,  like  that  of  the   Kallikak  family  by 
Dr.    Goddard,  have  established  the    fact  that  criminals, 
paupers,  imbeciles,  drunkards,  prostitutes,  and  other  de- 
generates frequently  spring  from  the  same  family  stock. 
A  very  large  percentage  of  the  prisoners  in  our  prisons  have 
come  from  more  or  less  degenerate  family  stocks. 


344  CRIME 

(3)  Criminals  more  often  show  other  forms  of  degen- 
eracy than  criminality  than  does  the  average  population; 
that  is,  criminals  often  belong  to  one  of  the  well-recognized 
degenerate  classes,  such  as  imbeciles,  epileptics,  and  insane. 

These  three  arguments  may  be  considered  to  be  con- 
clusive proof  that  criminality  is  in  some  cases  a  mani- 
festation of  physiological  degeneracy;  but  they  do  not 
show  that  the  bulk  of  criminals  come  from  physiologically 
degenerate  stocks.  On  the  contrary  it  is  highly  probable 
that  the  marks  of  physiological  degeneracy  are  not  to  be 
seen  in  from  more  than  25  to  35  per  cent  of  our  criminal 
class.  These  marks  of  degeneracy  of  course  especially 
characterize  defective  or  "born"  criminals,  but  to  some 
extent  they  are  found  among  the  habitual  criminals 
also. 

The  Influence  of  Heredity  on  Crime.  A  word  must  be 
said  about  the  influence  of  heredity  on  crime.  The  student 
will  remember  that,  according  to  the  modern  theory  of 
heredity,  acquired  characters,  or  characteristics,  are  not 
transmissible.  Accordingly,  when  we  find  crime  running  in 
a  family  for  generations,  as  in  the  Jukes  or  Kallikak  families, 
we  must  assume  either  that  the  criminal  tendency  is  trans- 
mitted by  the  social  environment  or  that  it  is  due  to  some 
congenital  variation  in  some  ancestor.  In  other  words,  if 
a  person  is  a  criminal  by  hereditary  defect,  if  the  tendency 
to  crime  is  born  in  him,  as  it  may  be  in  the  defective  crim- 
inal, he  will  transmit  the  tendency  toward  crime  to  his 
offspring;  but  if  a  normal  person  becomes  a  criminal  by 
acquired  habit  he  will  transmit  no  tendency  toward  crime 
to  his  children,  although  his  children  may  of  course  ac- 
quire the  tendency  from  their  social  environment. 


CRIME  345 

This  is  not  saying,  however,  that  in  such  cases  as  habitual 
drunkenness  and  habitual  vice  an  impaired  constitution 
may  not  be  transmitted  to  offspring.  But  this,  strictly 
speaking,  is  not  the  transmission  of  any  specific  acquired 
characteristic,  but  only  a  general  transmission  of  impaired 
vitality  which  may  show  itself  in  crime  and  in  various 
forms  of  degeneracy.  The  germ  cells  are  of  course  a  part 
of  the  body,  and  anything  that  profoundly  impairs  the 
nutrition  of  the  body  generally,  such  as  alcoholism  and 
constitutional  diseases,  may  also  impair  the  nutrition  of 
the  germ  cells,  and  result  in  a  weakened  constitution  in 
offspring. 

Lombroso's  Theory  of  Crime.  Lombroso,  and  the  Italian 
school  of  criminologists  generally,  attribute  crime  chiefly 
to  atavism,  that  is,  reversion  to  primitive  types.  They 
claim  that  the  criminal  in  modern  society  is  merely  a 
biological  reversion  to  the  savage  type  of  man;  that  the 
criminal  constitutes  therefore  a  distinct  "  anthropological 
variety";  and  that  there  is  a  marked  "criminal  type" 
which  can  be  made  out  even  before  a  person  has  committed 
a  crime.  They  say  further  that  the  criminal  type  is  marked 
physically  by  having  five  or  more  of  the  stigmata  of 
degeneration,  and  that  it  is  marked  mentally  by  having 
the  characteristics  of  the  savage  or  nature  man.  We 
cannot  stop  to  criticize  in  full  this  completely  biological 
theory  of  crime  which  is  offered  by  Lombroso  and  his 
followers.  Undoubtedly  crime  has  biological  roots,  and 
these  we  have  attempted  to  point  out  in  discussing  the 
influence  of  degeneracy  upon  crime.  But  to  claim  that 
the  criminal  constitutes  a  well-marked  "  anthropological 
variety  "  of  the  human  species,  as  Lombroso  argues,  is 


346  CRIME 

to  set  up  a  claim  for  which  there  is  no  foundation. 
What  Lombroso  thinks  are  the  marks  of  the  criminal  are 
simply  the  marks  belonging  to  the  degenerate  classes  in 
general.  That  is,  they  are  found  among  the  insane  and 
feeble-minded,  for  example,  as  well  as  in  some  classes  of 
criminals.  There  is  then  no  criminal  type  which  clearly 
separates  the  criminal  from  other  classes  of  degener- 
ates, and  which  will  mark  a  man  out  as  belonging  to  the 
criminal  class  even  before  he  has  committed  a  crime. 
Lombroso  and  some  of  his  school  have  altogether  over- 
emphasized the  physical  and  anatomical  side  of  the  study 
of  the  criminal,  and  slighted  the  sociological  side  of  such 
study.  Moreover,  Lombroso's  statements,  which  he  makes 
in  very  general  terms,  apply,  if  they  apply  at  all,  not  to 
criminals  as  a  class,  but  only  to  what  he  called  "born" 
criminals,  as  indeed  he  himself  acknowledged. 

Remedies  for  Crime.  —  The  remedies  for  crime  are 
dealt  with  by  the  subsidiary  science  of  penology,  which 
may  be  regarded  as  a  branch  of  scientific  philanthropy. 
We  can  only  direct  the  student's  attention  here  to  the  vast 
literature  on  the  subject  and  remark  that  the  cure  for 
crime  consists  not  in  some  social  panacea  or  in  social 
revolution,  but  in  dealing  with  the  causes  of  crime  so  as 
to  prevent  the  existence  of  the  criminal  class.  In  a  general 
way,  we  have  already  indicated  in  discussing  the  remedies 
for  poverty  and  pauperism  what  the  steps  must  be  to 
eradicate  crime.  In  order  practically  to  wipe  out  crime  in 
society,  as  we  have  already  said,  three  things  are  necessary. 
First,  every  individual  must  have  a  good  birth;  that  is, 
heredity  must  be  controlled  so  that  only  those  who  are 
physically  and  mentally  sound  are  allowed  to  marry  and 


CRIME  347 

reproduce.  The  difficulties  of  doing  this  we  have  already 
noted.  Second,  every  individual  must  have  a  good  train- 
ing, both  at  home  and  at  school,  so  as  to  adjust  him  properly 
to  the  social  life.  His  education  must  fit  him  to  take  his 
place  among  other  men,  make  him  able  to  take  care  of 
himself,  and  to  help  others;  and  make  him,  in  every 
possible  way,  acquainted  with  the  social  inheritance  of 
the  race.  Last  but  not  least,  just  social  conditions  must 
be  provided.  Everything  in  the  social  environment  must 
be  carefully  looked  after  in  order  to  insure  the  best  devel- 
opment of  the  individual  and  to  prevent  his  environment 
from  being  in  any  way  a  drawback  to  him. 

These  things,  if  it  were  possible  to  bring  them  about, 
would  wipe  out  crime,  or,  at  least,  minimize  it  to  the  lowest 
terms.  Of  course,  this  cannot  be  done  in  a  generation, 
perhaps  not  in  many  generations,  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
problem  of  crime  is  in  no  way  an  insoluble  problem  in 
human  society.  With  time  and  care  and  scientific  knowl- 
edge, crime,  as  well  as  poverty  and  pauperism,  could  be 
wiped  out. 

But  curative  measures  are  important,  also,  in  dealing 
with  the  criminal,  and  each  distinct  class  must  be  dealt 
with  differently.  We  noted  in  the  beginning  of  the  chapter 
the  three  great  character  types  in  the  criminal  class:  the 
defective  criminal,  in  whom  the  tendency  toward  a  life 
of  crime  is  inborn;  the  habitual  criminal,  who  acquires 
the  habit  of  crime  from  his  surroundings;  and  the  single 
offender,  who,  while  committing  a  single  offense,  never 
becomes  a  criminal  in  the  strictest  sense.  These  three 
distinct  classes  of  criminals,  whom  we  might  style  the 
degenerates,  the  derelicts,  and  the  accidental  offenders, 


348  CRIME 

need  to  be  recognized  in  our  criminal  law  and  to  be  dealt 
with  differently  by  our  criminal  courts  and  correctional 
institutions.  The  defective  criminal  can  scarcely  be 
adjusted  to  normal  social  life.  He  is,  as  we  have  al- 
ready seen,  usually  more  or  less  feeble-minded.  Refor- 
mation in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word  is  almost  out 
of  the  question  in  his  case.  The  proper  policy  for 
society  with  reference  to  the  defective  criminal  class, 
which  constitutes  but  a  small  portion  of  our  total 
criminal  population,  would  be  segregation  for  life.  Prac- 
tically, of  course,  this  may  have  its  difficulties  until  we 
perfect  our  means  of  discovering  slight  mental  defects 
in  individuals  which  make  them  incapable  of  social  ad- 
justment, but  practically,  also,  we  have  found  means  of 
recognizing  this  type  by  such  marks  as  incorrigibility, 
recidivism,  and  the  stigmata  of  degeneracy. 

The  habitual  criminal,  who  originally  was  a  normal 
person,  can  be,  at  least  in  the  early  part  of  his  career,  fully 
reformed.  Children  and  adolescents,  even  though  habit- 
ual offenders,  are  easily  susceptible  of  reformation,  but 
this  is  difficult  with  the  adult  habitual  offender  past  thirty 
years  of  age  who  has  a  long  criminal  record  behind  him. 
Like  the  defective  criminal,  he  is  scarcely  capable  of 
reformation.  Hardened  habitual  offenders,  and  especially 
professional  criminals,  should,  therefore,  be  sentenced  upon 
indeterminate  sentences,  terminable  only  when  adequate  evi- 
dence of  their  reformation  has  been  secured.  This  can  best 
be  accomplished  by  what  is  known  as  the  "  habitual  crim- 
inal act,"  providing  that  persons  guilty  of  three  or  four 
felonies  shall  be  sent  to  prison  for  life,  to  be  released  only 
upon  satisfactory  evidence  of  reformation. 


CRIME 


349 


The  single  offender,  who  is  usually  a  reputable  citizen 
who  commits  crime  through  passion  or  through  great 
temptation,  can  usually  best  be  dealt  with  outside  of  prison 
walls.  The  young  single  offender,  if  not  properly  handled, 
may  be  easily  transformed  into  an  habitual  criminal.  On 
the  whole,  a  young  single  offender  who  has  had  no  criminal 
record  is,  perhaps,  best  dealt  with  by  the  system  of  pro- 
bation which  we  will  note  later.  On  the  other  hand, 
certain  single  offenders  past  thirty  years  of  age,  such  as 
bribe-givers  and  bribe-takers,  society  may  have  to  punish 
in  order  to  make  an  example  of.  Exemplary  punishment 
is,  undoubtedly,  still  necessary  in  some  cases,  and  in  the 
main  it  should  be  reserved  for  this  class  of  mature  offenders 
in  society  who  have  otherwise  lived  reputable  lives.  Just 
how  far  exemplary  punishment  should  be  used  in  society 
as  a  deterrent  to  crime  is  a  disputed  question  among  penol- 
ogists.  Whether,  as  in  cases  of  homicide,  it  should  ever 
go  to  the  extent  of  capital  punishment  or  not  depends  very 
much  upon  the  civilization  of  the  group.  In  a  civilization 
like  ours,  where  blood  vengeance  is  so  often  demanded 
by  mobs,  it  is  probably  unwise,  for  the  present  at  least,  to 
seek  the  abolition  of  capital  punishment  for  murder  in 
the  first  degree. 

The  Prison  System.  Every  state  should  have  at  least 
six  distinct  sets  of  institutions  to  deal  with  the  criminal 
class. 

1.  County  and  city  jails  for  the  detention  of  offenders 
awaiting  trial. 

2.  Reform  schools  for  delinquent  children  under  sixteen 
years  of  age  who  require  institutional  treatment. 

3.  Industrial    reformatories    for    adult    first    offenders 


350  CRIME 

between  sixteen  and  thirty  years  of  age  who  require  institu- 
tional treatment. 

4.  Special  reformatories  for  vagrants,  inebriates,   and 
prostitutes. 

5.  A  hospital  prison  for  the  criminal  insane. 

6.  County  and  state  penitentiaries  for  incorrigible,  hard- 
ened criminals. 

If  any  one  of  these  sets  of  institutions  is  lacking  in  a 
state,  it  is  impossible  for  the  state  to  deal  properly  in  a 
remedial  way  with  the  problem  of  crime.  All  these  institu- 
tions, of  course,  need  to  be  manned  by  experts  and  equipped 
in  the  best  possible  way.  The  present  condition  of  our 
jails,  of  our  penitentiaries,  and  to  some  extent  of  our 
reform  schools,  frequently  makes  them  schools  of  crime. 
Nothing  is  more  demoralizing  in  any  community  than  a 
bad  jail  where  criminals  of  all  classes  are  herded  together 
in  idleness.  Again,  the  administration  of  some  of  our 
state  penitentiaries  with  an  eye  to  profit  only,  makes 
them  places  for  the  deformation  of  character  rather  than 
for  its  reformation.  Again,  the  lack  of  special  institutions 
to  deal  with  habitual  vagrants,  drunkards,  and  prostitutes, 
is  one  of  the  great  reasons  why  we  find  it  so  difficult  to 
stamp  out  crime.  Into  the  details  of  the  organization, 
construction,  and  management  of  these  institutions  we 
cannot  go  in  this  book.  It  is  sufficient  to  say  that 
all  these  institutions  should  furnish  specialized  scientific 
treatment  for  the  various  delinquent  classes  with  which 
they  deal,  and  to  do  this  they  should  aim  to  reproduce  the 
conditions  and  discipline  of  free  life  as  far  as  possible. 
These  institutions,  in  other  words,  with  the  exception  of 
the  penitentiaries  and  other  institutions  for  segregation, 


CRIME  351 

should  aim  at  overcoming  defective  character  in  individuals. 
Their  work  is  mainly,  therefore,  a  work  of  remedying  psy- 
chical defects  in  the  individual  which  prevent  his  proper 
adjustment  to  society.  In  the  case  of  penitentiaries, 
however,  the  work  is  one  mainly  of  segregation,  of  pro- 
viding humane  care  under  such  conditions  as  least  to  bur- 
den society,  and  at  the  same  time  give  such  opportunity  as 
there  may  be  for  reformation. 

Substitutes  for  Imprisonment.  We  have  already  noted 
that  some  classes  of  offenders  may  be  reformed  outside 
of  prison  walls.  This  is  especially  true  of  children,  of  the 
younger  misdemeanants,  and  of  those  who  have  committed 
their  first  felony.  It  has  been  found  that  by  suspending 
sentences  in  such  cases,  giving  the  person  liberty  upon 
certain  conditions,  and  placing  him  under  the  surveillance 
of  an  officer  of  the  court  who  will  stand  in  the  relation  of 
friend  and  quasi-guardian  to  him,  that  reformation  can, 
in  many  cases,  be  easily  accomplished.  This  is  known  as 
the  probation  system.  It  has  been  characterized  as  "  a 
reformatory  without  walls."  Originating  in  Massachusetts, 
it  has  been  increasingly  put  into  practice  of  recent  years 
in  many  states  with  much  success.  The  system,  however, 
will  not  work  well  without  trained  probation  officers  to 
watch  over  those  who  are  given  conditional  liberty.  The 
practice  of  placing  upon  probation  without  probation 
officers  is  a  questionable  one  and  is  liable  to  bring  in  dis- 
repute the  whole  system.  Probation  is  not  mere  leniency, 
as  some  suppose,  but  is  rather  a  system  of  reformation  in 
line  with  the  most  scientific  approved  methods. 

Coupled  with  probation  should  often  go  fines  and  res- 
titution to  injured  parties.  In  such  cases,  when  the  person 


352  CRIME 

is  placed  upon  probation,  the  fine  or  restitution  may  often 
be  paid  in  installments,  and  it  has  been  found  to  have  a 
decidedly  reformatory  effect  upon  the  character  of  the 
offender.  Fines  without  probation  are,  however,  but  little 
more  than  retribution,  or  exemplary  punishment. 

Delinquent  Children.  The  treatment  of  delinquent, 
children  constitutes  a  special  problem  in  itself.  It  has 
recently  come  to  be  well  recognized  that  criminal  tendencies 
nearly  always  appear  in  childhood,  and  that  if  we  can  over- 
come these  tendencies  in  the  delinquent  child,  we  shall 
largely  prevent  the  existence  of  an  habitual  criminal  class. 
Strictly  speaking,  of  course,  the  child  is  a  presumptive 
rather  than  a  real  criminal.  The  delinquent  child  is  so- 
cially maladjusted  and  is  scarcely  ever  to  be  considered 
an  enemy  of  organized  society.  Delinquent  children 
should  be  dealt  with,  therefore,  as  presumptive  rather  than 
as  genuine  criminals.  In  general,  therefore,  they  should 
not  be  arrested,  should  not  be  put  in  jail  with  older 
offenders,  and  should  be  tried  by  a  special  court  in  which 
the  judge  representing  the  state  plays  the  role  of  a  parent. 
For  the  most  part,  delinquent  children  may  be  dealt  with, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  by  putting  them  upon  probation 
under  the  care  of  proper  probation  officers.  When  the 
home  surroundings  are  not  good,  such  children  may  often 
be  placed  in  families  and  their  reformation  more  easily 
secured  than  if  placed  in  institutions.  In  any  case,  they 
should  never  be  sent  to  the  reform  school  except  as  a  last 
resort.  The  parent  or  guardian,  also,  should  be  held 
responsible  for  the  delinquency,  of  the  child  if  he  is  con- 
tributory thereto  by  his  negligence  or  otherwise. 

We  may  sum  up  this  chapter,  then,  by  repeating  that 


CRIME  353 

the  problem  of  crime  is  in  no  way  an  insoluble  problem 
in  human  society,  though,  perhaps,  a  certain  amount  of 
occasional  and  accidental  crime  will  always  exist.  The 
solution  of  the  problem,  as  we  have  seen,  only  demands 
that  man  should  secure  the  same  mastery  over  his  social  en- 
vironment and  over  human  nature  that  he  has  already 
practically  achieved  over  physical  nature;  and  the  gradual 
development  of  the  social  sciences  will  certainly  make  this 
possible  some  time  in  the  future. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

LEWIS,  The  O/cnder,  Chaps.  I,  II. 

BOIES,  The  Science  of  Penology,  Chaps.  VIII,  IX. 

WINES,  Punishment  and  Reformation,  Revised  Edition,  1919. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

ASCHAFFENBURG,  Crime  and  Its  Repression. 

BARROWS,  The  Reformatory  System  in  the  United  States. 

ELLIS,  The  Criminal. 

FERRERO,  Lombroso's  Criminal  Man. 

FERRI,  Criminal  Sociology,  trans,  of  1917. 

FLEXNER  and  BALDWIN,  Juvenile  Courts  and  Probation. 

HEALY,  The  Individual  Delinquent. 

LEESON,  The  Probation  System. 

LOMBROSO,  Crime,  Its  Causes  and  Remedies. 

MORRISON,  Crime  and  Its  Causes. 

PARMELEE,  Criminology. 

TRAVIS,  The  Young  Malefactor. 

Journal  of  the  American  Institute  of  Criminal  Law  and  Criminology. 

Prisoners  and  Juvenile  Delinquents  in  1910,  Census  Bureau. 


CHAPTER  XV 
SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

THERE  have  been  many  "short  cuts"  proposed  to  the 
solution  of  social  problems.  Among  these  the  various 
schemes  for  reorganizing  human  society  and  industry, 
brought  together  under  the  general  name  of  "socialism," 
have  attracted  most  attention  and  deserve  most  serious 
consideration.  In  criticizing  the  most  conspicuous  of  these 
schemes  of  social  reconstruction,  Marxian  or  "scien- 
tific" socialism,  it  should  be  understood  at  the  outset 
that  there  is  no  intention  of  questioning  the  general  aims 
of  socialists.  Those  aims,  as  voiced  by  their  best  rep- 
resentatives, are  in  entire  accord  with  sound  science, 
religion,  and  ethics.  That  humanity  should  gain  collec- 
tive control  over  the  conditions  of  its  existence  is  the 
ultimate  and  highest  aim  of  all  science,  all  education,  and 
all  government.  No  student  of  sociology  doubts  that 
human  society  has  steadily  moved,  though  with  interrup- 
tions, toward  a  larger  control  over  its  own  processes;  and 
no  sane  man  doubts  that  such  collective  control  over  the 
conditions  of  existence  is  desirable.  These  general  aims, 
which  the  socialists  share  with  all  workers  for  humanity, 
are  not  in  question.  What  is  in  question  is  the  social  philos- 
ophy which  lies  back  of  revolutionary  socialism  and  also 
the  methods  by  which  it  proposes  to  solve  the  social  prob- 
lem. In  order  to  criticize  socialism  we  must  see  a  little 

.354 


SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY  355 

more  exactly  what  socialism  is,  both  in  the  narrow  and  in 
the  broader  senses,  and  what  it  proposes  to  do. 

Socialism  Defined.  —  As  a  recent  socialist  writer  has 
declared,  socialism,  like  Christianity,  is  a  term  which  has 
come  to  have  no  definite  meaning.  It  is  used  by  all  sorts 
of  people  to  cover  all  sorts  of  vague  and  indefinite  schemes 
to  improve  or  revolutionize  society.  In  the  broadest  sense, 
we  may  define  socialism  as  the  name  of  a  political  and 
economic  program  which  aims  at  the  public  ownership 
of  all  or  of  a  majority  of  income-producing  property. 
More  narrowly,  however,  the  word  has  been  used  partic- 
ularly to  designate  the  program  and  social  theories  of  the 
party  founded  by  Karl  Marx  and  his  associates.  Prior  to 
the  Great  War,  at  least,  Marx's  theories  dominated  the 
socialist  parties  of  both  Continental  Europe  and  America. 
Thus  the  theories  of  the  Bolsheviki  or  Maximalist  party  in 
Russia  were  those  of  radical  Marxian  socialism.1  In  gen- 
eral, Marxian  socialism  seeks  to  solve  the  social  problem 
by  means  of  a  proletarian  revolution  which  will  put  the 
ownership  of  the  means  of  production  (capital)  in  the  hands 
of  the  laborers.  Other  forms  of  socialism,  more  moderate 
in  their  character,  would  simply  aim  at  a  gradual  realiza- 
tion of  the  following  program:  (i)  the  common  owner- 
ship of  the  means  of  production  (land  and  principal 
industries);  (2)  common  management  of  the  means  of 
production  (industry)  by  democratically  selected  author- 
ities; (3)  distribution  of  the  product  by  these  common 

1  Bolshevism,  or  the  doctrines  of  the  Bolsheviki,  should  of  course  not  be 
confused  with  the  Soviet  government  in  Russia  (Soviet  is  the  Russian  word 
for  Council),  which  is  a  government  by  the  representatives  of  occupational 
groups. 


350  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

authorities  in  accordance  with  some  democratically  ap- 
proved principle;  (4)  private  property  in  incomes  (con- 
sumption goods)  to  be  retained. 

But  Marxian  socialism  does  not  stop  with  this  political 
and  economic  program,  but  develops  a  whole  social  philos- 
ophy, which  has  perhaps  been  more  widely  taught  than 
any  other.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  we  are  concerned  with 
it.  Briefly  this  social  philosophy  advocates  (i)  " economic 
determinism,"  (2)  the  class  struggle  view  of  history,  and 
(3)  a  cataclysmic  theory  of  social  evolution. 

The  Theoretical  Basis  of  Marxian  Socialism.  —  Marxian 
socialism  is  frequently  called  scientific  socialism,  because  its 
followers  believe  that  it  rests  upon  a  scientific  theory  of 
social  evolution.  This  theory  is  best  stated  in  Marx's  own 
words,  as  he  gives  it  in  his  Critique  of  Political  Economy, 
namely,  that  "the  method  of  the  production  of  the  mate- 
rial life  determines  the  social,  political,  and  spiritual  life 
process  in  general."  We  find  it  stated  in  other  words, 
though  in  substance  the  same,  by  Engels,  Marx's  friend 
and  coworker.  Engels  says,  "In  every  historical  epoch, 
the  prevailing  mode  of  economic  production  and  exchange, 
and  the  social  organization  necessarily  following  from  it, 
form  the  basis  upon  which  is  built  up,  and  from  which 
alone  can  be  explained,  the  political  and  intellectual 
history  of  that  epoch."  In  other  words,  according  to 
Marx  and  his  followers,  the  economic  element  in  human 
society  determines  all  other  elements;  if  the  other  elements 
cannot  be  fully  derived  from  the  economic,  their  form 
and  expression  are  at  least  determined  by  the  economic. 
This  is  the  so-called  "materialistic  conception  of  history" 
upon  which  Marxian  socialists  believe  their  program  to 


SOCIALISM   IN  THE   LIGHT  OF   SOCIOLOGY  357 

have  a  firm  scientific  foundation.1  The  followers  of  Marx, 
indeed,  declare  that  with  this  principle  Marx  explains 
social  evolution  quite  as  fully  as  Darwin  explained  organic 
evolution  through  natural  selection;  and  they  do  not  hesitate 
to  compare  Marx's  work  in  the  social  sciences  with  Dar- 
win's work  in  the  biological  sciences. 

It  may  certainly  be  agreed  that  this  social  philosophy 
which  is  best  characterized  as  "economic  determinism,'' 
is  the  logically  necessary  foundation  of  Marxian  socialism. 
If  the  change  of  the  economic  or  industrial  order  of  human 
society  is  going  to  work  such  wonders  as  the  Marxists 
claim,  then  it  must  follow  that  the  economic  element  is  the 
fundamental  and  determining  element  in  the  social  life. 
If  what  is  wrong  with  human  society  is  chiefly  wrong  eco- 
nomic conditions,  then  the  changing  of  those  conditions 
should,  of  course,  change  the  whole  social  superstructure. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  the  dominantly  economic 
program  of  Marxian  socialists  must  stand  or  fall  with  the 
economic  interpretation  of  social  organization  and  evolu- 
tion which  Marx  proposed.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  an 
economic  philosophy  of  society  is  essentially  unsound, 
then  the  proposition  to  regenerate  human  society  simply 
by  economic  reorganization  is  also  unsound.  Let  us 
see  whether  the  positions  of  the  Marxian  socialists  are 
tenable  in  the  light  of  the  sociological  principles  which 
have  been  emphasized  in  the  previous  chapters  of  this 
book. 

1  In  several  utterances  of  his  later  years  Marx  qualified  considerably  his 
"  materialistic  conception  of  history,"  but  the  more  radical  or  revolutionary 
wing  of  his  followers  have  always  adhered  to  the  extreme  form  of  the 
theory. 


358  SOCIALISM   IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

Criticism  of  Marxian  Socialism.  —  The  student  has 
already  been  told  that  human  society  is  a  complex  of  living 
organisms,  responding  now  this  way,  now  that,  to  external 
stimuli  in  the  environment.  These  stimuli  in  the  environ- 
ment we  have  roughly,  but  inaccurately,  spoken  of  as 
causes,  though  they  are  not  causes  in  a  mechanical  sense. 
The  responses  which  are  given  to  these  stimuli  by  individ- 
uals and  groups  vary  greatly  according  to  heredity,  in- 
stincts, and  habits,  —  the  inner  nature,  in  other  words, 
of  the  organisms  composing  society.  Now,  the  stimuli  in 
the  environment  which  give  rise  to  the  activities  of  individ- 
uals and  societies,  though  not  in  any  mechanical  way, 
may  be  classified  into  several  great  groups,  such  as  the 
economic,  the  reproductive,  the  political,  the  religious,  and 
so  on.  The  economic  stimuli  would  be  those  that  have  to 
do  with  the  processes  of  production,  distribution,  and  con- 
sumption of  wealth;  that  is,  the  economic  stimuli  are  those 
which  are  concerned  with  economic  values.  Now,  while  the 
student  has  been  barely  introduced  to  the  psychological 
theory  of  human  society,  he  probably  knows  enough  of  in- 
dividual human  nature  to  see  that  there  is  no  reason  in  the 
nature  of  things  why  one's  responses  to  economic  stimuli, 
those  connected  with  economic  values,  should  determine  his 
response  to  all  other  stimuli;  and  this  is  what  scientific 
sociology  and  scientific  psychology  exactly  find ;  namely, 
that  there  is  no  reason  for  believing  that  economic  stimuli 
determine  in  any  exact  way,  or  to  any  such  extent  as  Marx 
thought,  responses  to  other  stimuli.  It  is  true  that  our 
habits  of  response  to  a  certain  class  of  stimuli  affect  to 
a  certain  extent  our  habits  of  response  to  all  other  classes. 
Thus  it  follows  that  the  economic  phase  of  human  soci- 


SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY  359 

ety  affects  to  a  very  great  degree  all  other  phases  of  human 
society.  But  this  is  simply  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of 
personality  and  the  interdependence  of  all  phases  of  the 
social  life,  and  it  is  very  different  from  Marx's  theory  that 
the  economic  determines  all  the  other  phases;  for  under  the 
doctrine  of  social  interdependence  we  can  see  it  is  quite 
as  reasonable  to  state  that  the  religious  and  political  phases 
of  the  social  life  determine  the  economic  as  it  is  to  state 
that  the  economic  determines  the  political  and  religious. 

Let  us  bring  the  discussion  down  to  more  concrete 
terms.  The  student  has  seen  that  in  every  social  problem 
there  are  a  multitude  of  factors  or  stimuli  (causes)  at 
work,  and  that  in  no  problem  is  the  economic  factor  so  all 
important  that  it  may  be  said  that  the  other  factors  are 
simply  subsidiary.  On  the  contrary,  in  such  a  problem 
as  crime  the  methods  of  production  and  distribution  of 
material  goods,  while  important  factors  in  the  problem 
of  crime,  in  no  way  determine  that  problem;  and  ideal 
conditions  of  the  production  and  distribution  of  wealth 
would  in  no  way  solve  the  problem  of  crime.  So,  too,  the 
negro  problem  is  hardly  touched  by  the  question  of  the 
forms  of  industry  or  the  economic  organization  of  society. 
We  might  go  on  with  a  whole  list  of  social  problems  and 
show  that  in  every  case  the  economic  factor  is  no  more 
important  than  many  other  factors,  and  that  the  economic 
reorganization  of  society  would  in  some  cases  scarcely 
affect  these  problems  at  all.  The  social  problem,  therefore,  - 
the  problem  of  the  relations  of  men  to  one  another,  —  is  not 
simply  nor  fundamentally  an  economic  problem;  rather  it  is 
fundamentally  a  biological  and  psychological  problem,  —  if 
you  please,  a  moral  problem. 


360  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

This  brings  us  to  a  second  criticism  of  socialism,  namely, 
that  it  proposes  to  reorganize  human  society  upon  an  economic 
basis,  not  upon  a  sociological  basis.  The  program  of  the 
Marxist  looks  forward  to  the  satisfaction  of  economic 
needs,  but  it  has  failed  to  take  into  account  all  the  require- 
ments for  social  existence.  It  would  be  far  more  scientific 
to  reorganize  society  upon  the  basis  of  the  needs  of  the 
family  than  to  reorganize  it  simply  upon  the  basis  of 
industry.  The  reproductive  process  which  the  Marxian 
socialists  ignore,  or  leave  unregulated  almost  entirely,  is 
far  more  important  for  the  continued  existence  of  human 
society  than  all  its  economic  processes,  —  if  by  the  repro- 
ductive process  we  mean  the  rearing  as  well  as  the  birth  of 
offspring;  and  if  by  the  economic  process  we  mean  merely 
the  forms  and  methods  of  the  production  and  distribution 
of  material  goods. 

In  other  words,  the  Marxist  program  leaves  the  future 
out  of  account,  and  aims  simply  to  satisfy  the  present 
generation  with  a  just  distribution  of  material  goods. 
If  it  could  be  shown  that  a  just  distribution  of  material 
goods  would  insure  the  future  of  the  race  and  of  civiliza- 
tion, then,  of  course,  the  Marxist  plea  would  be  made 
good.  But  this  is  just  what  is  doubtful.  On  the  whole, 
it  must  be  said  that  the  Marxist  program  is  based  upon 
the  wishes  and  desires  of  the  adult,  not  upon  the  needs  of 
the  child  or  of  the  race. 

The  extreme  emphasis  which  Marxian  socialism  throws 
upon  economic  and  industrial  conditions  in  human  society 
is,  therefore,  not  justified  by  the  scientific  facts  which  we 
know  about  collective  human  life.  Rather  it  must  be 
said  that  this  is  the  vital  weakness  of  Marxian  socialism,  - 


SOCIALISM   IN  THE   LIGHT  OF   SOCIOLOGY  361 

that  it  over-emphasizes  the  economic  element.  Of  course, 
we  are  not  saying  that  control  over  economic  conditions 
is  not  necessary  to  collective  control  over  the  general  con- 
ditions of  existence,  which  society  is  undoubtedly  aiming 
at,  but  it  is  saying  that  conceivably  collective  control  over 
the  social  life  process  might  be  upon  some  other  basis 
than  the  economic.  It  might  emphasize,  for  example,  the 
health  and  continuity  of  the  race,  or  individual  moral 
character,  far  more  than  the  distribution  of  economic 
values.  Marxian  socialism  proposes  simply  to  carry  a  step 
further  our  already  predominatingly  economic  social  or- 
ganization by  frankly  recognizing  the  economic  as  the  basis 
of  all  things  in  the  social  life.  A  dominantly  economic 
socialism  is,  therefore,  rightfully  judged  as  materialistic. 
It  is  really  an  expression  of  the  industrial  and  commercial 
spirit  of  the  present  age.  When  the  perspective  of  life 
becomes  shifted  again  to  the  more  important  biological 
and  spiritual  elements  in  life,  socialism  will  lose  its  dominat- 
ingly  economic  character,  or  it  will  cease  to  exist. 

It  must  be  emphasized  here  that  all  the  material  and 
economic  progress  of  the  modern  world  has  not  added 
greatly  to  the  happiness  or  betterment  of  man.  It 
is  true  that  material  progress  is  important,  yes,  neces- 
sary for  spiritual  progress.  But  material  progress  alone 
does  not  lead  to  spiritual  progress,  and  therefore  mere 
material  progress  can  never  add  anything  to  the  real 
happiness  and  social  betterment  of  the  race.  On  the 
contrary,  it  is  possible  to  conceive  of  a  society  in  which 
every  one  has  an  economic  surplus,  —  a  society  rolling  in 
wealth,  approximately  equally  divided,  and  yet  one  in 
which  human  misery  in  its  worst  forms  of  vice  and  crime, 


362  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

pessimism  and  self-destruction,  prevail.  It  is  an  old 
truth,  and  one  which  cannot  be  too  often  emphasized,  that 
making  men  "  better-off  "  does  not  necessarily  make  them 
"  better,"  but  the  modern  socialist  often  becomes  angry 
when  this  is  mentioned  to  him.  It  is  therefore  a  matter 
of  comparative  indifference,  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
happiness  and  ultimate  survival  of  the  race,  whether  eco- 
nomic goods  are  distributed  relatively  evenly  in  human 
society  or  not.  We  say  comparative  indifference,  because, 
of  course,  no  one  can  be  indifferent  to  the  material  needs 
of  life,  inasmuch  as  they  are  the  basis  of  its  higher  develop- 
ment. But  after  a  certain  minimum  is  assured  it  is  ex- 
tremely doubtful  whether  a  surplus  will  be  of  benefit  or 
not,  and  this  minimum  necessary  for  the  higher  spiritual 
development  of  the  social  life  can  be  secured  through  the 
reform  of  present  society  without  trying  the  doubtful 
social  revolution  which  the  socialists  advocate. 

A  third  criticism  of  Marxian  socialism  is  that  it  stands 
for  the  internecine  or  conflict  theory  of  society.  The  implica- 
tion of  Marx's  economic  determinism  is,  of  course,  an 
egoistic  theory  of  human  nature.  Hence  if  the  economic 
interests  of  classes  conflict,  class  war  must  result.  Human 
history  has  been  nothing  but  a  series  of  class  conflicts,  ac- 
cording to  the  Marxians,  and  must  continue  to  be  such  as 
long  as  one  class  controls  the  means  of  livelihood  of  another 
class.  Class  war  can  be  abolished,  they  say,  not  through 
ethical  ideals  of  brotherhood,  but  through  the  seizure  of  po- 
litical power  by  the  dispossessed  classes,  the  abolishment 
of  classes,  and  equalization  of  economic  conditions  for  all. 

This  brings  us  to  a  fourth  criticism  of  Marxian  socialism, 
that  traditionally  Marxian  socialism  has  been  revolutionary 


SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY  363 

socialism;  it  has  looked  forward  to  a  proletarian  revolution, 
which  sJtall  transfer  the  ownership  of  all  capital  to  the  working 
classes,  as  the  solution  of  the  social  problem.  In  brief,  it 
proposes  to  invoke  the  power  of  one  class,  the  workers, 
over  other  classes  to  secure  economic  justice.  Marx's  own 
formula  was  "evolution  through  revolution."  As  to  how 
this  revolution  is  to  be  brought  about,  Marxian  socialists 
differ.  Some  say  through  peaceful  political  means;  others 
say,  by  force  if  necessary.  Whether  brought  about  peace- 
fully or  by  force,  however,  it  is  evident  that  if  this  revolu- 
tion were  suddenly  accomplished  it  is  highly  uncertain 
whether  its  results  would  be  permanent.  For  all  that  we 
have  learned  concerning  human  society  leads  us  to  say 
that  social  organization  at  any  particular  time  is  very 
largely  a  matter  of  habit.  Now  collective  habits  are  less 
easily  changed  than  individual  habits,  because  any  change 
in  collective  habits  practically  necessitates  the  consent  of 
all  the  individuals  who  make  up  the  social  group.  Hence 
groups  usually  change  their  "habits,"  their  "mores," 
slowly.  We  know  also  that  even  in  individual  life  old 
habits  are  not  easily  supplanted  by  new  ones  and  that 
there  is  always  a  tendency  to  revert  to  the  old.  All  his- 
torical evidence  shows  that  revolutions  are  always  followed 
by  periods  of  reaction,  and  that  this  reaction  is  usually 
proportionate  to  the  extent  and  suddenness  of  change  in 
social  organization. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  normally  social  evolution  or  develop- 
ment takes  place  through  cataclysmic  changes  —  "revolu- 
tions." Great  social  changes  have  often  come  about,  it 
is  true,  suddenly,  but  if  they  have  been  of  a  progressive 
character  it  has  been  because  men  have  suddenly  learned 


364  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

from  some  crisis.  Progressive  social  changes  involve  learn- 
ing by  the  whole  group,  and  normally  they  are  brought 
about  by  public  discussion,  by  the  deliberate  formation  of 
a  public  opinion  and  of  a  group  will.  This  is  usually  a 
gradual  process.  Profound  social  changes,  in  other  words, 
require  preparation  in  individual  character  and  proceed  by 
a  series  of  gradual  steps.  The  slow  progress  of  Christianity 
and  democracy  illustrates  this.  When  social  changes  are 
brought  about  suddenly  by  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  one 
class  over  other  classes,  the  only  probable  result  will  be  the 
collapse  of  the  new  order  sooner  or  later  because  it  rests 
upon  insufficient  foundations  in  individual  character.  Thus 
a  lasting  radical  social  reconstruction  by  means  of  revolu- 
tion is  scarcely  possible. 

But  the  great  menace  of  Marxian  socialism  is  its  implied 
threat  of  force.  The  logic  of  Marxian  socialism  leads 
straight  to  revolution  by  force  if  its  program  cannot  be 
realized  by  peaceful  political  means.  The  student  can 
hardly  fail  to  see  the  close  connection  between  the  doc- 
trines of  Marxian  socialism  and  the  practical  program  of 
the  Bolshevist  party  in  Russia.  Actual  war  between  classes 
is  the  natural  result  ot  such  doctrines.  As  to  revolution 
by  force,  sociology  can  offer  but  one  judgment,  and  that 
is  that  it  is  the  most  costly  method  of  change  which  a 
nation  can  employ.  It  is  a  justifiable  method  only  when 
a  governing  class  is  hopelessly  out  of  adjustment  with  its 
group,  when  its  power  is  a  mere  survival  blocking  the 
path  of  progress.  Revolution  by  force  is  objectionable  as 
a  method  of  social  reconstruction  because  it  stimulates  so 
greatly  the  forces  of  social  disorder.  Russia  illustrates  this; 
but  in  a  more  urban,  and  so  more  fragile  civilization  like 


SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY  365 

that  of  the  United  States,  its  effect  would  probably  be  even 
more  frightful.  Moreover,  in  a  democracy,  where  political 
power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  revolution  by  force  is 
particularly  unnecessary  and  objectionable  as  a  method  of 
change.  The  method  of  democracy  is  government  through 
discussion,  the  formation  of  a  public  opinion,  and  of  a 
group  will;  and  this  sociology  finds  to  be  the  normal 
method  of  social  change.  The  social  problem  is  a  prob- 
lem of  right,  not  of  might,  and  it  can  be  solved  only 
by  discussion,  rationality,  and  good  will.  This  is  the 
scientific  method  of  social  reconstruction,  therefore,  and 
not  revolution. 

It  is  not  the  place  in  this  book  to  take  up  the  practical 
objections  to  Marxian  and  other  forms  of  socialism.  These 
practical  objections  are  for  the  most  part  of  a  political 
and  economic  nature,  and  they  accordingly  can  be  better 
dealt  with  in  treatises  on  politics  and  economics  than  in 
one  on  sociology.  It  is  perhaps  sufficient  to  say  that  the 
political  and  economic  objections  to  socialism  must  be 
accorded  not  less  weight  in  any  practical  view  of  the  matter 
than  the  sociological  objections.  Government,  for  example, 
exists  in  human  society  to  regulate,  and  not  to  carry  on 
directly,  social  activities.  It  may  carry  on  successfully 
certain  industries  which  have  been  reduced  to  routine, 
which  require  little  initiative,  or  which  for  public  reasons 
are  more  conveniently  conducted  by  the  state  in  its  various 
branches.  But  if  under  state  socialism  the  state  in  its 
various  branches  or  forms  were  to  own  and  manage  all 
productive  industry,  it  is  extremely  probable  that  such 
an  experiment  at  the  present  time  would  break  down  of 
its  own  weight,  since  the  state  would  be  attempting 


366  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

that  which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  as  the  chief  regu- 
lative institution  of  society,  it  is  not  fitted  to  do.  But 
it  is  not  our  purpose,  as  has  just  been  said,  to  go  into 
the  political  and  economic  objections  to  Marxian  or  other 
forms  of  socialism.  To  understand  these  the  student 
must  consult  the  leading  works  on  economic  and  political 
science. 

Non-Marxian  Forms  of  Socialism.  —  All  that  has  been 
said  thus  far  regarding  socialism  applies  only  to  Marxian 
socialism.  Brief  mention  must  be  made  of  other  forms, 
though  their  adherents  are  not  nearly  so  numerous  as  those 
of  Marxian  socialism.  The  moderate  socialists,  in  general, 
repudiate  economic  determinism,  the  class  struggle  theory 
of  history,  the  hedonistic  ethics,  and  the  revolutionary 
methods  of  Marxian  socialism.  This  is  especially  true  of 
the  moderate  English  socialists.  Such  socialism,  in  other 
words,  disregards  the  whole  social  philosophy  which  has 
hitherto  been  made  more  or  less  a  part  of  the  socialist 
movement,  especially  by  the  Marxians.  The  moderate 
socialists  limit  their  socialism  to  the  practical  proposal  of 
the  ownership  and  control  of  a  majority  of  all  business  by 
the  workers  or  by  society  collectively,  and  the  political 
and  economic  changes  necessitated  by  such  ownership. 
Moreover,  the  moderate  socialists  do  not  claim  that  the 
carrying  out  of  their  program  would  usher  in  a  social  mil- 
lennium or  even  solve  the  social  problem.  They  claim  that 
such  economic  reorganization  of  society  is  simply  the  most 
important  step  toward  the  solution  of  the  social  problem. 

It  must  be  said  that  the  sociological  objections  which  have 
been  urged  against  Marxian  socialism  do  not  apply  as 
against  this  moderate  type  of  socialism  which  makes  itself 


SOCIALISM   IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY  367 

sponsor  for  no  particular  social  philosophy.  The  objections 
to  the  program  of  moderate  socialism,  in  other  words,  are 
wholly  of  a  practical  nature,  and  therefore  they  fall  within 
the  realm  of  economic  and  political  objections,  rather  than 
of  sociological. 

On  the  other  hand,  more  extreme  forms  of  socialism  than 
the  Marxian  type  have  developed  within  recent  years. 
These  extreme  forms  of  socialism  are  known  on  the  con- 
tinent of  Europe,  generally,  as  Syndicalism.  Syndicalism, 
unlike  Marxian  socialism,  would  not  rely  at  all  upon 
political  methods,  but  rather  upon  the  use  of  such  methods 
as  "the  general  strike,"  and  various  forms  of  violence, 
such  as  the  destruction  of  capital.  Syndicalism  aims  at 
accomplishing  its  results,  in  other  words,  not  by  peaceful 
revolution,  but  by  the  use  of  violence,  if  that  is  necessary. 
The  syndicalists,  however,  avow  themselves  to  be  socialists, 
and  aim  at  the  cooperative  carrying  on  of  industry  by  groups 
of  workingmen.  The  chief  representatives  of  Syndicalism 
in  the  United  States  are  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the 
World.  The  Russian  Bolsheviki  also  in  some  respects 
approximate  the  program  of  the  syndicalists. 

Thus  we  see  that  socialism  tends  to  divide  itself  into  a 
moderate  group  and  an  extreme  group,  with  the  moderate 
Marxians  at  the  present  time  occupying  a  midway  position. 
Whether  the  socialists  will  become  united  in  their  social 
philosophy  and  in  their  program  in  the  near  future  it  is  im- 
possible to  say.  At  present  they  seem  united  only  in  their 
opposition  to  the  existing  order  of  society  and  in  their  com- 
mon belief  in  the  essential  doctrine  of  socialism,  namely, 
the  doctrine  of  the  common  ownership  and  management 
of  the  instruments  of  production. 


368  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

The  Program  of  Scientific  Social  Reconstruction.  —  Cer- 
tain steps  sociology  and  the  social  sciences  already  indicate 
as  necessary  for  a  normal  social  life.  These  steps,  however, 
aim  not  at  the  destruction  of  the  existing  social  order,  but 
at  removing  certain  demonstrated  causes  of  social  malad- 
justment which  exist  in  present  society;  and  as  in  the  solu- 
tion of  special  social  problems  we  have  seen  reason  to  reject 
"short-cuts"  and  "cure-alls,"  so  in  a  scientific  reconstruc- 
tion of  human  society  we  have  good  reason  to  reject  the 
social  revolution  which  the  followers  of  Marx  advocate, 
and  to  offer  as  a  substitute  in  its  stead  some  social  re- 
forms which  will  make  more  nearly  possible  a  normal  social 
life. 

Perhaps  the  necessary  steps  for  bringing  about  such  a 
normal  social  life  have  never  been  better  summed  up 
than  by  Professor  Devine  in  his  book  on  Misery  and  its 
Causes.  Rather  than  offer  a  program  of  our  own  we  shall 
therefore  give  a  brief  resume  of  the  conditions  which 
Professor  Devine  names  as  essential  to  normal  social  life, 
believing  that  these  offer  a  program  upon  which  all  sane 
social  workers  and  reformers  can  unite.  Professor  Devine 
names  ten  conditions  essential  to  a  normal  social  life: 

(1)  the  securing  of  a  sound  physical  heredity,  that  is,  a 
good  birth  for  every  child,  by  a  rational  system  of  eugenics ; 

(2)  the  securing  of  a  protected  childhood,  which  will  assure 
the  normal  development  of  the  child,  and  of  a  protected 
motherhood,   which   will   assure   the  proper   care   of   the 
child;    (3)  a  system  of  education  which  shall  be  adapted 
to  social  needs,  inspired  by  the  ideals  of  rational  living  and 
social  service;    (4)  the  securing  of  freedom  from  prevent- 
able disease;    (5)  the  elimination  of  professional  vice  and 


SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY  369 

crime;  (6)  the  securing  of  a  prolonged  working  period  for 
both  men  and  women;  (7)  a  general  system  of  insurance 
against  the  ordinary  contingencies  of  life  which  now  cause 
poverty  or  dependence;  (8)  a  liberal  relief  system  which 
will  meet  the  material  needs  of  those  who  become  acci- 
dentally dependent;  (9)  a  minimum  standard  of  life  for  all 
sufficiently  high  to  insure  full  nourishment,  reasonable 
recreation,  proper  housing,  and  the  other  elementary  neces- 
sities of  life;  (10)  a  social  religion  which  shall  make  the 
service  of  humanity  the  highest  aim  of  all  individuals. 

It  is  sufficient  to  say,  in  closing  this  chapter,  that  if  these 
ten  essentials  of  a  normal  social  life  could  be  realized  —  and 
there  is  no  reason  why  they  cannot  be  —  there  would  be  no 
need  to  try  the  social  revolution  which  Marxian  socialism 
advocates.  The  scientific  reform  of  taxation  is  the  method 
by  which  the  economic  inequalities  of  our  present  social 
order  can  be  overcome  and  such  a  normal  social  lif  e  be  made 
possible  for  all.  The  experience  of  the  War  points  clearly  to 
the  way  how  to  secure  ample  funds  for  the  social  purposes 
mentioned  by  Professor  Devine. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  the  ultimate  aim  of  the 
social  sciences  is  to  provide  society  with  the  knowledge 
necessary  for  collective  control  over  its  own  life-processes. 
Sociology  and  the  special  social  sciences  are  aiming,  there- 
fore, in  an  indirect  way  to  accomplish  the  same  thing 
which  Marxian  socialism  aims  at  accomplishing  through 
revolution.  There  would  seem  to  be  no  danger  in  trusting 
science  to  work  out  this  problem  of  collective  control  over 
the  conditions  of  existence.  There  are  no  risks  to  run  by 
the  scientific  method,  for  it  proceeds  experimentally, 
adequately  testing  theories  by  facts  as  it  goes  along.  The 


370  SOCIALISM  IN  THE  LIGHT  OF  SOCIOLOGY 

thing  to  do,  therefore,  for  those  who  wish  to  see  "a  human- 
ity adjusted  to  the  requirements  of  its  existence,"  is  to  en- 
courage scientific  social  research  along  all  lines.  With  a 
fuller  knowledge  of  human  nature  and  human  society  it 
will  be  possible  to  indicate  sane  and  safe  reconstructions 
in  the  social  order,  so  that  ultimately  humanity  will  control 
its  social  environment  and  its  own  human  nature  even 
more  completely  than  it  now  controls  the  forces  of  physical 
nature.  But  the  ultimate  reliance  in  all  such  reconstruction, 
as  we  will  try  to  show  in  the  next  chapter,  must  be,  not 
revolution,  not  even  legislation,  but  education. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

CROSS,  The  Essentials  of  Socialism,  Chap.  IV. 
MCDONALD,  The  Socialist  Movement,  Chap.  VTI. 
SPARGO,  Bolshevism. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

BERNSTEIN,  Evolutionary  Socialism. 
ELY,  Socialism  and  Social  Reform. 
OILMAN,  Socialism  and  the  American  Spirit. 
GUYOT,  Socialistic  Fallacies. 
HUNTER,  Socialists  at  Work. 
KIRKUP,  History  of  Socialism. 
SCUDDER,  Socialism  and  Character. 
SPARGO,  Socialism,  Revised  Edition. 
WELLS,  New  Worlds  for  Old. 

On  Syndicalism: 

BROOKS,  American  Syndicalism. 

BRISSENDEN,  A  History  of  the  American  Bolsheviki,  the  I.  W.  W. 


CHAPTER  XVI 
EDUCATION  AND   SOCIAL  PROGRESS 


As  has  just  been  said,  &e~i$Rma,te  reliance  in  all  social 
reform  or  social  reconstruction  must  be  upon  the  education 
of  the  individual.  Social  organization  can  never  be  more 
complex  or  of  a  higher  type  than  the  individual  character 
and  intelligence  of  the  members  of  the  group  permits. 
At  any  given  stage  of  society,  therefore,  the  intelligence 
and  moral  character  of  its  individual  members  limits  social 
organization.  Only  by  raising  the  intelligence  and  char- 
acter of  the  individual  members  of  society  can  a  higher 
type  of  social  life  permanently  result. 

Another  fact  to  which  the  student  needs  his  attention 
called  is  thatpll  progress  in  human  society,  it  follows, 
from  what  has  just  been  said,  depends  upon  the  relation 
between  one  generation  and  its  successor./  Only  as  new 
life  comes  into  society  is  there  opportunity  to  improve 
the  character  of  that  life.  If  at  any  given  time  intelli- 
gence and  character  limit  the  possibilities  of  social  organ- 
ization, then  it  is  equally  manifest  that  only  in  the  new 
individuals  of  society  can  that  intelligence  and  character 
be  greatly  improved. 

There  are,  of  course,  two  possible  ways  of  bringing  about 
such  improvement:  —  first,  through  the  selection  of  the 
hereditary  elements  in  society,  eliminating  the  unfit  and 
preserving  the  more  fit;  but,  as  we  have  repeatedly  pointed 

371 


372 


EDUCATION  AND   SOCIAL   PROGRESS 


out,  such  a  scheme  of  artificial  selection  is  far  in  the  future, 
and  in  any  case  its  inauguration  would  have  to  depend 
upon  the  second  method  of  improving  individual  character, 
which  is  through  education  and  training.  As  we  have 
--insisted,  not  only  may  the  natural  instincts  and  tendencies 
of  individuals  be  greatly  modified  by  training  but  through 
education  the  habits  and  hence  the  character  of  individuals 
can  be  controlled.  Therefore  the  main  reliance  of  society 
in  all  forward  movements  must  be  upon  education,  that  is, 
upon  artificial  means  of  controlling  the  formation  of  char- 
acter and  habit  in  individuals. 

The  finality  of  education  in  social  betterment  can  be, 
perhaps,  further  illustrated  by  Reconsidering  for  a  moment 
some  T)f  the  social  problems  which  we  have  just  studied. 
Take  for  example  the  problem  of  crime.  There  are  only 
three  possible  means,  as  we  have  already  seen,  of  elimi- 
nating crime  from  human  society :  —  first,  through  changes 
in  individual  human  nature,  brought  about  by  biological 
selection,  that  is,  through  a  system  of  selective  breeding, 
eliminating  all  who  show  any  criminal  tendencies.  This 
method  would,  perhaps,  eliminate  certain  types  of  crimi- 
nals as  we  have  already  seen,  namely,  those  m  whom  the 
hereditary  tendency  to  crime  is  dominant.  A  second  means 
of  attacking  the  problem  of  crime  would  be  by  improving 
social  and  economic  conditions  by  means  of  the  inter- 
ference of  the  organized  authority  of  society  in  the  form 
of  the  state.  Legislation  and  administration  directed  to 
social  ends  might  accomplish  much  in  reducing  the  temp- 
tations and  opportunities  for  crime  in  any  group.  The 
correction  of  evils  in  social  and  industrial  organization 
would,  no  doubt,  again  greatly  lessen  crime  but  it  is  en- 


EDUCATION  AND   SOCIAL   PROGRESS 


373 


tirely  conceivable,  from  all  that  we  know  of  human  nature 
and  human  society,  that  crime  might  still  persist  under  a 
just  social  and  industrial  organization.  Crime  could  be  com- 
pletely eliminated  only  through  a  third  means,  namely,  the 
careful  training  of  each  new  individual  in  society  as  he  came 
on  the  stage  of  life,  so  that  he  would  be  moral  and  law-abiding, ' 
respecting  the  rights  of  others  and  the  institutions  of  society. 
Moreover,  neither  selective  breeding  nor  governmental  inter- 
ference in  social  conditions  could  accomplish  very  much  in 
eliminating  crime  unless  these  were  backed  by  a  wise  sys- 
tem of  social  education. 

Now  what  is  true  of  crime  is  equally  true  of  all  social 
problems.  They  may  be  approached  from  either  of  three 
sides:  —  first,  from  the  biological  side,  or  the  side  of  physi- 
cal heredity;  second,  from  the  side  of  social  organization, 
or  the  improvement  of  the  social  environment;  third, 
from  the  side  of  individual  character,  or  the  psychical  ad- 
justment of  the  individual  to  society.  As  Professor  Ward 
and  many  other  sociologists  have  emphasized,  it  is  this 
latter  side  which  is  the  most  available  point  of  attack 
on  all  social  problems;  for  when  we  have  secured  a  right 
attitude  of  the  individual  toward  society  all  social  problems 
will  be  more  than  half  solved.  Thus,  as  we  said  at  the , 
beginning  of  this  book,  education  has  a  bearing  upon 
every  social  problem,  and  every  social  problem  also  has  a 
bearing  upon  education.  Just  how  important  this  recipro- 
cal relationship  between  education  and  social  life  is,  we 
can  appreciate  only  when  we  have  considered  somewhat 
more  fully  the  nature  of  social  progress. 

The  Nature  of  Social  Progress. —  Social  progress  has  been 
defined  in  many  ways  by  the  social  thinkers  of  the  past. 


374  EDUCATION  AND   SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

Without  entering  into  any  formal  definition  of  social 
progress,  we  believeJ:hat  it  will  be  evident  to  the  reader 
of  this  book  thatAocial  progress  consists,  for  one  thing, 
in  the  more  complete  adaptation  of  society  to  the  condi- 
tions of  life.  We  regard  those  changes  as  progressive 
whether  they  be  moral,  intellectual,  or  material,  which 
I  bring  about  a  better  adaptation  of  individuals  to  one 
{ another  in  society,  and  of  social  groups  to  the  requirements 
of  their  existence.  Social  progress  means,  in  other  words, 
the  adaptation  of  society  to  a  wider  and  more  universal 
i  environment.^  The  ideal  of  human  progress  is  apparently 
adaptation  to  a  perfectly  universal  environment,  such  an 
adaptation  as  shall  harmonize  all  factors  whether  internal 
or^external,  present  or  remote,  in  the  life  of  humanity. 
>cial  progress  means,  therefore,  greater  harmony  among 
the  members  of  a  group.  It  means  also  greater  efficiency 
of  those  members  in  performing  their  work.  Finally,  it 
means  greater  ability  on  the  part  of  the  group  to  survive. 
Social  progress  includes,  therefore,  the  ideals  of  social  har- 
mony, social  efficiency,  and  social  survival.  Things  which 
do  not  ultimately  conduce  to  these  ends  can  scarcely  be 
called  progressive.1 

Now  it  is  evident  that  adaptation  on  the  part  of  indi- 
viduals and  groups  to  the  requirements  of  life  may  be  in 
part  accomplished  by  biological  selection,  that  is,  by 
eliminating  the  least  adapted.  But  selection  is,  after  all, 
a  very  clumsy  and  imperfect  instrument  for  securing  the 
highest  type  of  adaptation.  Again,  it  is  evident  that  a  cer- 
tain degree  of  adaptation  can  be  secured  through  the  con- 
straint of  government  and  law;  but  only  a  relatively  low 
type  of  adaptation  can  be  secured  in  such  an  external 


EDUCATION   AND   SOCIAL   PROGRESS  375 

way.  It  is  finally  evident,  therefore,  that  the  highest  type 
of  adaptation  in  either  individual  or  social  life  can  be 
secured  only  by  training  the  intelligence  and  moral  charac- 
ter of  individuals  so  that  they  will  be  sufficient  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  existence. 

Another  feature  of  social  progress  which  we  have  not 
yet  mentioned  in  this  chapter,  though  we  have  noted  it 
repeatedly  in  earlier  chapters,  is  the  increased  complexity 
of  social  organization.  This  increased  complexity  is  in  \ 
part  due  to  the  mere  increase  in  numbers.  It  is  also  due 
to  the  various  processes  themselves  by  which  wider  and. 
more  universal  adaptation  is  brought  about  in  society. 
Thus,  while  every  useful  mechanical  invention  aids  man 
to  conquer  nature,  it  at  the  same  time  increases  the  com- 
plexity of  social  life.  Now  in  a  more  complex  society 
there  is  more  opportunity  for  conflicts  of  habit  between 
individuals,  more  opportunity  for  social  maladjustment, 
and  therefore  more  opportunity  for  the  failure  of  some  part 
or  all  of  the  group  in  achieving  a  social  life  characterized 
by  harmony,  efficiency,  and  capacity  for  survival.  Hence, 
the  adaptation  of  individuals  in  the  large  and  complex 
groups  of  modern  civilized  societies  becomes  a  greater  and 
greater  problem.  The  regulative  institutions  of  society, 
such  as  government,  law,  religion,  and  education,  have 
to  grapple  with  this  problem  of  adjusting  individuals  to 
the  requirements  of  an  increasingly  complex  social  life. 
No  doubt  religion,  government,  and  law  have  a  great 
function  to  perform  in  increasing  social  regulation,  but 
they  can  only  perform  it  effectively  after  they  enlist  edu- 
cation on  their  side. 

The  Social  Function  of  Education.  —  We  are  now  pre- 


376  EDUCATION  AND    SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

pared  to  understand  the  meaning  of  educational  systems 
in  civilized  society  and  to  see  what  the  true  function  of 
education  is.  /  Education  exists  to  adapt  individuals  to 
their  social  lire.  It  is  for  the  purpose  of  fitting  the  indi- 
vidual to  take  his  place  in  the  social  group  and  to  add 
something  to  the  life  of  the  group.  Educational  systems 
exist  not  to  train  the  individual  to  develop  his  powers  and 
capacity  simply  as  an  individual  unit,  but  rather  to  fit 
him  effectively  to  carry  on  the  social  life  before  he  actively 
\participates  in  it.  In  other  words,  the  social  function  of 
•education  is  to  guide  and  control  the  formation  of  habit 
and  character  on  the  part  of  the  individual,  as  well  as  to 
develop  his  capacity  and  powers,  so  that  he  shall  become 
an  efficient  member  of  society.  This  work  is  not,  at  least 
in  complex  civilizations  like  our  own,  one  which  we  carry 
on  simply  in  order  to  achieve  social  perfection,  but  it  is 
rather  something  which  is  necessary  for  the  survival  of 
large  and  complex  groups./  Otherwise,  as  we  have  pointed 
out,  the  conflicts  in  the  acquirement  of  habit  and  char- 
acter on  the  part  of  individuals  would  be  so  great  that 
there  would  be  no  possibility  of  their  working  together 
harmoniously  in  a  common  social  life.  Just  so  far  as  the 
system  of  education  is  defective,  is  insufficient  to  meet 
social  needs,  in  so  far  may  we  expect  the  production  of 
.  individuals  who  are  socially  maladjusted,  as  shown  in 
pauperism,  defectiveness,  and  crime. 

/0r     Education  is,  then,  the  great  means  of  controlling  habit 
V  and  character  in  complex  social  groups,  and  as  such  it  is 
the  chief  means  to  which  society  must  look  for  all  sub- 
stantial social  progress.     It  is  the  instrument  by  which 
x  human  nature  may  be  apparently  indefinitely  modified, 


EDUCATION  AND   SOCIAL  PROGRESS  377 

•* 

and  hence,  also,  the  instrument  by  which  society  may  be 
perfected.  The  task  of  social  regeneration  is  essentially 
a  task  of  education.^ 

Education  as  a  Factor  in  Past  Social  Evolution.  —  Does 
past  social  history  justify  these  large  claims  for  education 
as  a  factor  in  social  development?  It  must  be  replied  that 
the  history  of  human  society  undoubtedly  substantiates 
this  position,  but  even  if  it  did  not,  we  should  still  have 
good  ground  for  claiming  that  education  can  be  such  an 
all-powerful  factor  in  the  social  future.  The  sociological 
study  of  past  civilizations,  however,  shows  quite  con- 
clusively that  all  of  them  have  depended  in  one  way  or 
another  upon  educational  processes,  not  only  for  con- 
tinuity, but  largely,  also,  for  their  development.  As  we 
have  already  seen,  the  life  history  of  a  culture  or  a  civili- 
zation is  frequently  the  life  history  of  a  religion.  But 
religious  beliefs,  together  with  the  moral  and  social  beliefs, 
which  become  attached  to  them,  were  effectively  trans- 
mitted only  through  the  instruction  of  the  young.  The 
religious  element  did  scarcely  more  than  afford  a  power- 
ful sanction  for  the  moral  and  social  beliefs  upon  which 
the  social  organization  of  the  past  rested;  hence,  when  we 
ascribe  great  importance  to  the  religious  factor  in  social 
evolution,  we  also  ascribe,  at  the  same  time,  great  impor- 
tance to  education,  because  it  was  essentially  the  edu- 
cational process,  together  with  religious  sanction,  which 
made  possible  most  of  the  civilizations  and  social  progress 
of  the  past. 

Indeed,  we  have  no  record  of  any  people  of  any  very 
considerable  culture  that  did  not  employ  educational 
processes  to  the  largest  degree  to  preserve  and  transmit 


378  EDUCATION  AND   SOCIAL   PROGRESS 

that  culture  from  generation  to  generation.  Culture  has 
been  passed  down  in  human  history,  therefore,  essentially 
by  educational  processes.  These  educational  processes 
have  controlled  the  formation  of  habits  and  character, 
of  ways  of  thinking  and  ways  of  acting,  in  successive  gen- 
erations of  individuals.  The  educational  processes  have 
had  much  more  to  do,  therefore,  with  the  civilizations  and 
social  organization  of  the  past  than  industrial  conditions. 
Industrial  conditions  have  been  rather  relatively  external 
factors  in  the  social  environment  to  which  society  has  had 
to  adapt  itself  more  or  less.  In  the  same  way,  political 
authority  has. rested  on,  and  been  derived  from,  the  social 
traditions  rather  than  the  reverse.  It  is  therefore  not 
too  much  for  the  sociologist  to  say,  agreeing  with  Thomas 
Davidson,  that  education  is  the  last  and  highest  method 
of  social  evolution.  The  lowest  method  of  evolution  was 
by  selection,  and  that,  as  we  have  already  emphasized, 
cannot  be  neglected.  The  next  method  of  social  evolu- 
tion apparently  to  develop  was  the  method  of  adaptation 
by  organized  authority,  and,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
organized  authority  in  society,  or  social  regulation  by 
means  of  authority,  must  indefinitely  persist  and  perhaps 
increase,  rather  than  diminish;  but  the  latest  and  highest 
method  of  social  evolution  is  not  through  biological  selec- 
tion nor  through  the  exercise  of  despotic  authority,  but 
through  the  education  of  the  individual,  so  that  he  shall 
become  adjusted  to  the  social  life  in  habits  and  character 
before  he  participates  in  it.  Human  society  may  be 
modified,  we  now  see,  best  through  modifying  the  nature 
of  the  individual,  and  the  most  direct  method  to  do  this 
is  through  education. 


EDUCATION   AND   SOCIAL  PROGRESS  379 

The  Socialized  Education  of  the  Future.  —  If  what  has 
been  said  is  substantially  correct,  then  education  should 
become  conscious  of  its  social  mission  and  purpose.  The 
educator  should  conserve  education  as  the  chief  means  of 
social  progress,  and  education  should  be  directed  to  pro- 
ducing efficient  members  of  society.  The  education  of 
the  future  must  aim,  in  other  words,  not  at  producing 
lawyers,  physicians,  engineers,  but  at  producing  citizens. 
Education  for  citizenship  means  that  there  must  be  radi- 
cal reconstruction  in  the  educational  processes  of  the  pres- 
ent. The  education  of  the  nineteenth  century  aimed  at 
developing  largely  power  and  capacity  in  the  individual 
as  such.  Its  implicit,  and  oftentimes  its  avowed,  aim 
was  individual  success.  The  popularity  of  higher  edu- 
cation in  the  nineteenth  century  especially  rested  upon 
the  cult  of  individual  success.  It  became,  therefore, 
largely  commercialized,  and  emphasized  chiefly  the  pro- 
fessions and  occupations  which  best  assured  the  individual 
a  successful  career  among  a  commercial  and  industrial 
people. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  individualistic,  commer- 
cialized education  of  the  latter  years  of  the  nineteenth 
century  very  often  failed  to  produce  the  good  citizen. 
On  the  contrary,  with  its  ideal  of  individual  power  and 
success,  it  frequently  produced  the  cultured  freebooter, 
which  our  modern  industry  has  so  often  afforded  examples 
of.  Education,  instead  of  being  a  socializing  agency  and 
the  chief  instrument  of  social  regeneration,  became  an 
individualizing  agency  dissolving  the  social  order  itself.  It 
is  this  education  which  in  part  produced  our  present  social 
problems. 


380  EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

Very  slowly  our  educators  are  becoming  conscious  of 
the  fact  that  this  type  of  education  is  a  social  menace, 
and  that  our  educational  system  needs  reformation  from 
bottom  to  top  in  order  to  become  again  equal  to  the  social 
task  imposed  upon  it  by  the  more  complex  social  con- 
ditions of  the  twentieth  century.  Hence  the  demand  for 
a  socialized  education,  which  is  proceeding,  not  only  from 
sociologists  and  social  workers,  but  from  the  progressive 
leaders  of  education  itself. 

What  the  socialized  education  of  the  future  should  be  we 
can  outline  only  in  its  more  essential  and  general  character- 
istics. The  curriculum  is  the  vital  thing  in  education,  and 
the  consideration  of  what  sort  of  curriculum  is  demanded 
by  the  social  situation,  from  elementary  school  to  university, 
will  serve  better  perhaps  to  define  socialized  education  than 
a  formal  definition. 

First  of  all,  let  us  recall  that  in  man  the  chief  organ  of 
adaptation,  both  in  his  physical  and  in  his  social  life,  is 
the  mind.  The  freeing  of  the  mind,  the  development  of 
its  powers,  and  the  disciplining  of  it  to  social  use  has  been, 
in  general,  the  fundamental  aim  of  modern  education; 
and  this  aim  a  socialized  education  would  fully  reaffirm. 
Only  it  would  throw  the  accent  upon  the  social  purpose 
involved  in  this  aim.  Through  the  freeing  of  the  mind, 
the  development  of  its  powers,  and  the  disciplining  of  these 
to  social  use,  a  social  life  which  is  plastic,  adaptable,  and 
progressive  is  practically  assured.  Hence  a  socialized  educa- 
tion means,  first  of  all,  a  liberalizing  and  liberating  educa- 
tion of  the  mind;  and  subjects  which  are  especially  adapted 
to  achieve  this  end  should  receive  primary  consideration. 

Secondly,  a  socialized  education  will  aim  at  the  diffusion 


EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  381 

of  definite  social  information.  We  cannot  solve  our  social 
problems  without  more  social  intelligence;  and  the  surest 
way  to  secure  social  intelligence  is  to  have  more  social 
and  political  education  in  our  schools.  We  live  in  a  social 
world  more  than  in  a  world  of  material  objects.  Our  chief 
adjustments  must  be  made  to  men  and  to  institutions,  not 
to  things.  Human  relationships,  in  other  words,  make  or 
mar  the  world  we  know.  They  count  for  more  in  human 
happiness  than  everything  else  put  together.  We  can  no 
longer  trust  common  sense  to  adjust  the  individual  to  this 
world  of  human  relationships;  for  our  civilization  has  be- 
come such  a  complex  system  of  relationships  that  no  one 
can  play  his  part  in  it  well  without  a  very  considerable 
amount  of  general  and  specific  social  information.  There- 
fore, the  study  of  the  relationships  of  men  to  one  another 
must  be  the  essential  element  in  a  system  of  social  education. 
Such  studies  as  history,  government,  economics,  ethics,  and 
sociology  must  occupy  a  larger  place  in  the  education  of 
the  future  if  we  are  to  secure  a  humanity  adjusted  to  the 
requirements  of  its  existence. 

Moreover,  many  new  experiments  are  being  tried  through- 
out our  civilization  which  depend  for  their  success  upon  a 
general  diffusion  of  social  intelligence.  Democracy  is  such 
an  experiment.  The  attempt  to  establish  democracy  with- 
out providing  adequate  social  and  political  education  for 
the  mass  of  citizens  must  result  in  disaster.  If  we  want 
democracy  to  succeed,  we  must  educate  for  democracy.  It 
is  treason  to  our  democratic  institutions  to  send  forth  from 
our  schools  young  men  and  women  who  know  little  or 
nothing  of  the  responsibility,  duties,  and  privileges  of 
citizens  in  a  democracy,  and  of  the  social  conditions  and 


382  EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

ideals  which  are  necessary  for  the  success  of  democratic 
society.  In  a  socialized  education,  then,  social  and  polit- 
ical studies  will  occupy  the  most  conspicuous  place  in  the 
curriculum. 

All  this  implies  that  the  older  idea  that  education  can 
be  given  regardless  of  content  is,  from  the  social  point  of 
view,  a  great  mistake.  Social  knowledge  is  necessary  for 
intelligent  and  efficient  social  service,  and  education  should 
have  efficiency  in  service  as  its  chief  end.  Therefore,  socio- 
logical knowledge  in  the  broadest  sense  should  be  required 
in  the  education  of  every  citizen,  and  particularly  of  those 
who  are  to  become  social  leaders.  Professor  Ward  has  ably 
argued  that  if  sufficient  information  of  the  facts,  conditions, 
and  laws  of  human  society  could  be  given  to  all,  that  alone 
would  bring  about  in  the  highest  degree  social  progress. 
Whether  we  agree  or  not  that  the  mere  giving  of  infor- 
mation will  of  itself  lead  to  progressive  or  dynamic  action 
in  society,  it  must  be  admitted  that  right  social  information 
is  indispensable  for  right  social  action.  As  Professor  Cooley 
has  said,  "We  live  in  a  system,  and  to  achieve  right  ends, 
or  any  rational  ends  whatever,  we  must  learn  to  understand 
that  system."  Hence,  the  commanding  place  which  so- 
ciology and  the  social  sciences  should  occupy  in  the  edu- 
cation of  all  classes. 

In  the  higher  education,  the  social  sciences  should  be 
especially  emphasized,  because  it  is  those  who  receive 
higher  education  who  become  the  leaders  of  society,  and  it 
is  important,  no  matter  what  occupation  or  profession  they 
may  serve  society  in,  that  they  understand  the  bearings  of 
their  work  upon  social  welfare.  They  must  know  their 
duties  as  citizens  and  understand  how  society  may  best  be 


EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  383 

served.  In  other  words,  our  higher  education  should  put 
to  the  front  the  ideal,  not  of  individual  power  and  success, 
but  of  social  service;  and  this  means  that,  in  addition  to  the 
technical  or  professional  education  which  the  more  highly 
educated  are  given,  there  must  be  given  them  a  sufficient 
knowledge  of  social  conditions  and  the  laws  and  principles 
of  social  progress  to  enable  them  to  serve  society  rightly. 
Intelligent  social  service,  we  repeat,  cannot  exist  without 
social  knowledge. 

But  a  socialized  education  cannot  stop  with  the  giving 
of  mere  information  regarding  social  facts.  Its  third  task 
will  be  to  point  out  and  seek  to  inculcate  social  values, 
standards  and  ideals,  as  soon  as  adequate  scientific  knowl- 
edge of  social  facts  has  been  ascertained  on  which  to  base 
scientific  social  standards  and  ideals.  Thus  as  soon  as  we 
have  ascertained  the  conditions  and  effects  of  such  a  matter 
as  child  labor,  we  have  the  knowledge  on  which  we  can  base 
and  inculcate  a  scientific  standard  regarding  it.  If  this 
were  not  so,  social  education  would  be  useless.  The  ap- 
proach to  moral  education  must  be  through  the  social 
sciences.  Morality  cannot  be  taught  as  an  abstraction. 
The  trouble  with  most  of  the  instruction  in  morality  in  our 
schools  in  the  past  is  that  it  has  been  divorced  from  the 
facts  of  our  social  life.  If  we  will  base  such  instruction 
upon  scientific  social  knowledge,  we  can  as  readily  incul- 
cate ideals  regarding  government,  law,  sanitation,  family 
life,  business,  and  human  relations  generally  as  we  can 
standards  of  vocational  excellence. 

Socialized  education  means,  then,  moral  education;  for 
it  means  education  into  social,  national,  and  humanitarian 
ideals;  not  simply  into  those  ideals  as  they  are,  but  as  they 


384  EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

ought  to  be  in  the  light  of  full  knowledge  regarding  human 
relationships.  It  will  aim,  not  simply  at  the  development 
of  the  individual,  but  "to  create  social  solidarity  by  means 
of  a  social  type  marked  by  service."  It  will  lead  directly 
to  that  consecration  of  life  to  the  service  of  humanity  which 
is  the  essence  of  true  religion. 

Fourthly,  socialized  education  will  make  adequate  pro- 
vision for  the  vocational  training  of  every  citizen,  no  matter 
how  poor  he  may  be.  To  be  a  good  citizen  or  to  serve 
humanity  at  large,  one  must  be  usually  self-supporting, 
must  find  one's  work  in  the  world,  and  be  able  to  do  it  well. 
We  are  beginning  to  perceive  that  the  service  ideal  of  life 
demands  that  everybody  in  normal  health  be  occupied  at 
some  useful  work,  and  that  in  a  democracy  there  is  no  place 
for  a  class  of  idlers.  Moreover,  we  are  also  beginning  to 
perceive  that  all  service,  all  constructive  labor,  is  of  social 
value,  and  perhaps  more  nearly  of  equal  social  worth  than 
we  had  supposed.  Socialized  education  would  of  course  be 
a  failure  if  it  did  not  culminate  in  the  individual's  finding 
his  life  work,  his  proper  vocation  in  society. 

But  enthusiasts  in  vocational  education  have  often 
made  one  of  two  mistakes.  First,  they  have  often  wished 
to  vocationalize  the  whole  educational  system,  or  to  place 
specialized  vocational  training  too  early  in  the  curriculum. 
But  specialized  vocational  training  should  come  at  the 
end  of  a  socialized  curriculum,  not  at  its  beginning;  it 
should  be  its  crown,  not  its  foundation.  Preceding  all 
vocational  education  should  come  the  liberation  of  the 
mind,  the  understanding  of  social  facts,  and  the  apprecia- 
tion of  social  values.  The  second  mistake  which  some 
enthusiasts  for  vocational  education  make  is  that  they 


EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  385 

confuse  it  with  socialized  education  in  general.  But  voca- 
tionalization  is  only  a  part  of  the  process  of  socialization. 
To  mistake  the  part  for  the  whole  would  be  an  unpardon- 
able error,  for  it  would  land  us  in  worse  difficulties  than 
before.  An  efficient  lawyer,  or  farmer,  or  engineer,  the 
common  experience  of  life  shows,  is  not  necessarily  a  good 
citizen.  To  think  that  good  citizenship  consists  simply  in 
vocational  excellence  is  to  misconceive  the  whole  nature 
of  the  social  life  and  of  socialized  education.  Vocational 
education  obviously  can  be  made  safe  for  democracy  and 
higher  civilization  only  by  attaching  it  to  a  general  pro- 
gram of  socialized  education.  A  large  part  of  our  grade 
work,  our  high  school  work,  and  our  undergraduate  work 
in  college  should  therefore  be  kept  free  from  vocational 
training.  We  must,  however,  have  a  system  of  vocational 
education,  open  even  to  the  child  of  the  humblest  citizen, 
as  the  crown  of  our  whole  educational  system ;  but  we  must 
never  forget  that  all  men  in  a  democracy  are  citizens  first 
before  they  are  members  of  any  calling,  trade,  or  profession. 
Of  course,  much  more  is  involved  in  the  socialization 
of  education  than  these  changes  in  the  curriculum.  The 
teacher,  for  example,  must  have  the  social  point  of  view* 
and  be  imbued  with  the  spirit  of  social  service.  The, 
teacher  should  realize  that  he  is  a  social  creator  and  that, 
at  bottom,  his  work  is  nothing  less  than  the  shaping  of  the 
social  future.  But  the  attitude  of  the  teacher  goes  back 
largely  to  the  training  he  has  received  in  the  high  schools, 
colleges,  and  universities.  It  is  upon  these  latter  that  the 
responsibility  must  rest  for  socializing  our  education  and 
making  it  a  conscious  agency  of  social  reconstruction;  for 
they  train  the  teachers  and  the  educational  leaders.  It 


386  EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS 

is  not  our  purpose,  however,  to  trace  in  detail  all  that  is 
involved  in  the  socialization  of  education,  but  rather  merely 
to  point  out  the  essential  marks  of  a  socialized  education 
and  the  need  of  it  as  the  only  basis  for  enduring  social 
progress. 

Summary  on  Education  and  Social  Reconstruction.  - 
Social  education  is  the  foundation  and  essential  means  of 
all  other  methods  of  social  reconstruction  in  a  democracy. 
It  is  the  distinctive  method  of  social  evolution  in  its  higher, 
more  conscious  phases,  and  is  the  only  means  by  which 
human  society  can  perfect  itself.  But  social  education 
must  be  scientific,  that  is,  it  must  diffuse  knowledge  "of 
social  facts  and  laws  and  of  methods  by  which  social  evils 
may  be  overcome.  It  must  also  be  imbued  with  the  hu- 
manitarian spirit,  taking  the  ideal  of  social  service  as  its 
chief  end.  Such  social  education,  as  a  foundation  for 
progressive  policies  along  every  line,  is  the  only  way  out 
in  our  civilization.  It  alone  can  transform  our  "mores" 
into  those  of  a  higher  humanitarian  civilization.  It  will 
insure  the  development  of  true  moral  freedom  in  our  social 
life ;  for  social  science  implies  searching  but  impersonal 
criticism  of  social  institutions  and  public  policies.  It  will 
check  the  exaggerated  individualism  which  hitherto,  as  we 
have  seen,  has  been  one  of  the  most  menacing  tendencies 
of  our  civilization;  for  social  education  will  show  the  sol- 
idarity of  society  and  the  interdependence  of  all  its  parts. 
Finally,  it  will  lessen  the  practical  materialism  of  modern 
civilization;  for  it  will  throw  emphasis  upon  the  importance 
of  the  relations  of  men  to  one  another.  The  social  sciences, 
aiming  at  the  control  of  Social  conditions  and  of  social 
progress,  necessarily  emphasize  the  higher  life  of  man,  and 


EDUCATION  AND  SOCIAL  PROGRESS  387 

they  therefore  set  before  the  student  the  goal,  not  of  ma- 
terial achievement  or  individual  success,  but  of  the  service 
of  mankind. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

TODD,  Tlicorics  of  Social  Progress,  Chap.  XXXIII. 

SMITH,  Educational  Sociology,  Chaps.  I,  XIV. 

ELLWOOD,  The  Social  Problem,  Revised  Edition,  Chap.  VI 

Fur  more  extended  reading: 

BAGLEY,  Educational  Values. 
BAGLEY,  The  Educative  Process. 
BETTS,  Social  Principles  of  Education. 
DEWEY,  Democracy  and  Education. 
GILLETTE,  Vocational  Education. 
KING,  Education  for  Social  Efficiency. 
KING,  Social  Aspects  of  Education. 
MORGAN,  Education  and  Social  Progress. 
ROBBINS,  The  School  as  a  Social  Institution. 
WARD,  Applied  Sociology,  Chaps.  VIII-XII. 
WARD,  Dynamic  Sociology,  Vol.  II,  Chap.  XIV. 
WHITE  and  HEATH,  A  New  Basis  for  Social  Progress. 


V 


CHAPTER  XVII1 
THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

WE  shall  now  try  briefly  to  summarize  the  theoretical 
principles  which  have  been  more  or  less  brought  out  in  the 
discussions  of  the  preceding  chapters.  Of  course,  for  any 
adequate  treatment  of  the  principles  of  social  organization 
and  evolution,  the  student  must  turn  to  the  standard  texts 
on  sociological  theory.  This  book,  however,  would  be 
incomplete  without  directing  the  student's  attention,  in 
some  measure  at  least,  to  the  theoretical  principles  implied 
in  our  concrete  discussions. 

The  Origin  of  Society.  —  We  have  tried  to  show  that 
society  is  something  which  springs  from  the  very  processes 
of  life  itself.  It  is  not  something  which  has  been  invented 
or  planned  by  individuals.  On  the  contrary,  life,  in  its 
higher  forms  at  least,  could  not  exist  without  association. 
The  processes  of  both  nutrition  and  reproduction  in  all 
higher  forms  of  life  involve  a  necessary  interdependence 
among  organisms  of  the  same  species.  From  the  very  be- 
ginning of  life,  almost,  the  association  of  the  sexes  has  been 
necessary  for  reproduction  and  for  the  care  and  rearing  of 
offspring.  Likewise,  some  degree  of  association  has  always 
been  necessary  for  the  procuring  of  an  adequate  food  supply 
and  for  protection  against  enemies.  Thus,  society  has 
grown  spontaneously  out  of  the  necessities  of  the  life-process. 
It  has  grown  out  of  both  of  the  fundamental  phases  of  the 
life-process,  the  food  process  and  the  reproductive  process. 

1  In  a  brief  course  of  study  this  chapter  may  be  omitted. 
388 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  389 

No  greater  error  could  be  made  in  sociology,  therefore,  than 
to  assume  that  society  is  the  result  of  the  coming  together 
of  individuals  developed  in  isolation.  On  the  contrary, 
society,  in  the  sense  of  a  group  of  organisms  carrying  on  a 
common  life  by  means  of  mental  interaction,  is  an  expression 
of  the  original  and  continuing  unity  of  the  life-process  of  the 
associating  organisms.  While  the  interaction  of  individ- 
uaf  organisms  in  its  lowest  phases  was  probably  purely 
physical,  yet  it  was  out  of  such  interaction  that  the  mental 
interaction  which  we  call  association,  or  society,  arose. 

Control  over  food  supply  necessitated  association  among 
animals  because  a  food  supply  can  be  more  easily  secured 
by  groups  of  cooperating  individuals  than  by  isolated 
individuals.  Natural  selection  operated,  therefore,  from 
the  beginning  of  life,  in  favor  of  groups  and  toward  the 
elimination  of  individuals  living  relatively  isolated.  More- 
over, it  would  especially  favor  those  groups  in  which  the 
interaction  between  individuals  was  quick  and  sure,  in 
other  words,  those  in  which  the  powers  of  mental  inter- 
stimulation  and  response  were  developed.  It  is  not  an 
accident,  therefore,  that  the  most  successful,  and,  in  general, 
the  higher  animals,  live  in  groups. 

Such  collective  control  over  the  food  process  established 
primarily  by  natural  selection  becomes  one  of  the  great 
bases  for  social  organization,  and  in  humanity  such  associa- 
tion for  providing  food  supply  has  given  rise  to  society's 
industrial  institutions. 

Defense  against  enemies  has  been,  of  course,  another 
phase  of  the  life-process  which  has  favored  the  development 
of  association.  Really,  however,  this  is  very  largely  the 
negative  side  of  the  food  process.  It  needs  no  argument  to 


39° 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 


show  that  such  defense  can  be  much  better  undertaken  by 
groups  of  individuals  than  by  isolated  individuals,  and  that 
natural  selection,  therefore,  must  have  operated  all  along 
in  this  way  to  favor  group  life. 

However,  the  activities  connected  with  nutrition  have 
probably  not  played  so  large  a  part  in  the  genesis  of  associa- 
tion as  the  activities  connected  with  reproduction.  The 
birth  and  care  of  offspring  are  essential  phases  of  life,  and  in 
all  but  the  lowest  forms  of  life  they  involve  the  cooperation 
of  at  least  two  individuals.  In  our  study  of  the  family, 
we  have  seen  how  sexual  reproduction  and  parental  care 
gave  rise  to  the  family  group.  We  have  also  seen  the  great 
part  which  the  family  group  has  played  in  producing  all 
other  forms  of  association.  All  of  the  great  regulative  and 
moral  institutions  in  humanity,  for  example,  seem  to  have 
had  their  origin,  more  or  less,  in  the  life  of  the  family  group. 
It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  society,  in  the  intimate  and 
sympathetic  sense,  had  its  beginnings  in  the  family,  espe- 
cially in  the  relation  of  the  child  to  the  mother. 

The  Origin  of  Human  Society.  We  have  already  noticed 
that  there  are  vast  differences  between  human  society 
and  animal  association.  What  has  just  been  said  applies  to 
the  origin  of  animal  association  in  general  and  not  specifi- 
cally to  the  origin  of  human  society.  What,  then,  is  the 
origin  of  human  society?  The  only  reply  that  can  be 
given  is  that  it  is  an  evolution  from  animal  association. 
Despite  the  great  differences  between  animal  association 
and  human  society  which  were  illustrated  in  discussing  the 
contrasts  between  the  family  life  of  man  and  of  brutes, 
the  only  scientific  conclusion  which  we  can  reach  is  that 
human  society  has  been  developed  through  long  ages  of 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  39! 

selection  from  animal  association.  What  makes  human 
society  distinct  and  peculiar  in  itself,  indeed,  as  we  have  al- 
ready pointed  out,  is  the  intellectual  element  in  it.  Upon 
the  two  great  differences  between  man  and  the  other  ani- 
mals, articulate  speech  and  the  power  of  abstract  thought, 
rest  the  chief  differences  between  animal  and  human  society. 
For,  as  we  have  seen,  when  we  examine  human  social  or- 
ganization carefully,  we  find  in  it  the  same  instinctive  | 
elements  which  we  find  in  the  higher  animals.  But,  in  ad- 
dition, we  find  many  intellectual  elements  such  as  language, 
self-consciousness,  morality,  religion,  and  all  the  other  prod- 
ucts of  man's  higher  intellectual  faculties.  Peculiar  human 
instincts  may  give  human  society  its  distinctive  character 
to  some  extent,  but  this  distinctive  character  is  more  largely 
attributable  to  man's  much  higher  intellectual  development. 
Nevertheless,  we  must  not  conclude  that  human  society 
is  in  any  sense  an  artificial  and  rational  construction. 
There  is  every  evidence  that  human  institutions  for  the 
most  part  have  not  had  a  premeditated,  reflective  origin, 
but  have  sprung  up  spontaneously  from  the  needs  of  life. 
Many,  indeed,  have  developed  down  to  the  present  time 
with  but  little  premeditated  guidance.  Nevertheless,  with 
the  advance  of  social  evolution,  the  intellectual  and  spiritual 
elements  have  played  an  increasingly  important  part,  and 
there  is  good  ground  for  believing  that  they  can  play  a  con- 
trolling part  in  the  future.  Human  society  is  modifiable, 
then,  in  the  same  sense  and  in  the  same  degree  in  which 
human  nature  is  modifiable.  While  it  is  not  a  contract, 
as  was  once  thought,  which  can  be  made  over  to  suit  the 
pleasures  of  the  parties  thereto,  neither  is  it  a  machine  of 
the  gods  which  man  cannot  modify. 


392  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

The  Process  of  Social  Development.  —  The  process  of 
social  development  is  necessarily  in  part  like  that  of  organic 
evolution,  in  part  like  that  of  individual  mental  growth, 
since  it  is  made  up  of  both  organically  hereditary  and  in- 
dividually acquired  elements.  However,  if  we  neglect 
that  part  of  social  development  which  is  brought  about 
through  the  working  of  the  factors  in  organic  evolution 
(variation,  heredity,  and  selection),  then  the  social  process 
presents  itself  as  a  continuous  adaptation  and  readaptation 
in  the  relations  of  individuals  brought  about  by  mental 
processes.  The  adjustments  between  individuals,  as  we 
have  seen,  necessarily  must  constantly  change,  not  only 
on  account  of  changing  conditions  in  the  environment 
but  also  because  of  the  expansive  character  of  life  itself. 
Now,  the  adjustments  or  coadaptations  between  individuals 
which  exist  at  any  given  time  are  the  social  order  or  or- 
ganization of  that  particular  time  and  place.  Such  Co- 
adaptations  between  individuals  give  rise  to  persistent 
forms  of  social  activities,  which  we  may  term  social  habits, 
also  called  by  some  writers  "  folkways."  As  long  as  such 
persistent  social  activities,  crystallized  into  institutions  of 
law,  government,  religion,  morality,  and  industry,  work 
well,  they  usually  receive  but  little  attention.  Accom- 
panying these  persistent  activities,  or  social  habits,  are,  of 
course,  uniform  ways  of  thinking  and  feeling  in  the  group ; 
and  these  habits  of  thought  and  feeling,  as  well  as  habits 
of  action,  are  passed  along  by  tradition  or  customary  imita- 
tion from  generation  to  generation. 

Habits  cannot  exist  in  society  any  more  than  in  the  in- 
dividual without  continually  being  modified.  Groups  of 
individuals  have  to  continually  adjust  themselves  to  new 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 


393 


conditions  in  the  environment,  and  so  the  relations  between 
individuals  themselves  must  also  change.  Hence,  social  kl 
habits  must  change.  Now  these  changes  in  the  adaptation 
of  individuals  to  one  another  and  of  the  group  to  its  en- 
vironment are  brought  about  mainly  by  processes  of  mental 
interaction.  That  is,  communication,  suggestion,  sym- 
pathy, imitation,  and  other  forms  of  mental  interaction 

t  bring  about  uniformity  of  ideas,  feelings,  and  opinions 
within  the  group,  both  with  reference  to  the  old  conditions 
and  with  reference  to  the  new  adaptation  which  must  be 
made.  Hence,  we  see  at  once  the  great  function  in  the 
social  life  of  such  processes  as  public  criticism,  discussion, 
the  formation  of  public  opinion,  the  selection  of  leaders  and 
programs  for  action.  All  these  processes,  and  so  also  com- 
munication, suggestion,  and  imitation  in  general,  have 
manifestly  reference  to  building  up  new  types  of  adaptation 
between  the  individuals  of  the  group,  or  between  the  group 
and  its  environment. 

Thus  the  development  of  our  social  life,  so  far  as  it 
is  not  brought  about  by  the  factors  in  organic  evolution, 
is  very  like  the  process  of  mental  growth  or  development 
in  the  individual.  Just  as  in  individual  life  there  is  a  con- 
stant replacement  of  habits  which  are  no  longer  workable, 

for  are  outgrown,  so  in  our  social  life  there  is  a  continual 
replacement  of  old  institutions  and  customs  by  new  institu- 
tions and  ways  of  living.  So  the  process  of  social  develop- 
ment is  like  the  learning  process  in  individuals.  Just  as 
in  the  individual  superior  adaptations  can  be  made  only 
by  processes  of  attention,  discrimination,  the  association 
of  ideas,  and  judgments  of  value,  so  in  the  social  group 
processes  of  communication,  discussion,  the  formation  of 


394  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

public  opinion  and  of  social  values  work  to  the  same  end. 
Moreover,  as  in  the  individual  we  find  the  highest  con- 
sciousness in  the  transition  from  one  habit  to  another,  so 
in  social  life  we  also  find  the  greatest  use  of  mental  interac- 
tion in  the  transition  from  one  form  of  institution  or  associa- 
tion to  another. 

The  student  can  readily  illustrate  all  this  from  what  has 
been  said  regarding  the  historical  development  of  the  family, . 
and  also  from  the  social  life  of  the  present  in  which  he  lives, 
because  all  of  our  present  social  problems  are  due  to  the 
difficulties  of  effecting  transition  from  one  type  of  social 
adjustment  to  another.  In  discussing  divorce,  for  example, 
we  especially  pointed  out  that  the  present  disintegration 
and  confusion  in  our  family  fife  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the 
old  type  of  family,  which  answered  very  well  the  needs 
of  our  forefathers,  is  no  longer  adapted  to  modern  condi- 
tions, and  that  there  is  difficulty,  in  some  classes  of  our 
population  at  least,  in  coming  to  an  agreement  regarding 
what  shall  be  the  new  type  of  family.  Social  life  thus 
develops  largely  through  the  continual  interchange  of  opin- 
ions, ideas,  and  ideals  as  well  as  through  the  copying  of 
activities  and  feelings  by  individuals. 

It  is  impossible  in  this  text  to  go  in  detail  into  the  numer- 
ous factors  which  make  up  the  process  of  social  develop- 
ment. It  may  be  pointed  out,  however,  that  imitation 
manifestly  comes  in  wherever  uniform,  concerted  action 
in  the  group  is  necessary  or  desirable.  Imitation  serves  to 
diffuse  uniform  activities  throughout  a  group.  Hence, 
the  imitative  tendency  in  man  is  a  very  great  factor  in- 
deed in  the  social  life,  because  all  social  activity  has  in  it 
this  element  of  uniform,  concerted  action  among  individuals. 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  395 

Sympathy  and  understanding  are  two  other  closely  related 
factors  which  have  much  to  do  with  the  social  life.  Sym- 
pathy brings  about  uniformity  of  feeling  and  therefore  aids 
in  securing  uniformity  of  activity.  Through  sympathetic 
understanding  individuals  are  able  to  coordinate  their 
activities  more  harmoniously ;  thus  successful  social  adjust- 
ment depends  in  very  great  measure  upon  sympathy  and 
understanding  between  associates,  and  for  this  reason  all 
social  groups  seek  to  cultivate  sympathy  and  understanding 
among  their  members.  Finally,  conflict  is  also  a  method  of 
social  adjustment.  However,  conflict  of  the  more  serious 
sort  is  relatively  an  abnormal  thing  within  the  group,  and 
arises  only  because  the  members  of  the  group  have  failed 
to  adjust  themselves  harmoniously  to  one  another. 

The  Theory  of  Social  Order.  —  Social  order  differs  from 
social  organization.  Social  organization  may  refer  to  any 
condition  or  relation  of  the  elements  of  a  social  group; 
but  by  social  order  we  mean  a  settled  and  harmonious 
relation  between  the  individuals  or  the  parts  of  a  society. 
The  problem  of  social  order  is  then  the  problem  of  har- 
monious adaptation  among  the  individuals  of  the  group; 
and  the  question  arises,  how  do  the  relationships  become 
settled  and  harmonious  ? 

It  is  evident  that  all  the  factors  which  shape  social 
organization  must  enter  more  or  less  into  this  problem  of 
the  determination  of  the  conditions  which  make  for  settled 
and  harmonious  relationships  among  individuals.  Social 
order,  like  social  organization,  therefore,  will  rest  more  or 
less  upon  the  instincts  and  the  acquired  habits  of  the  group. 
Harmonious  relationships  between  individuals  are  furthered, 
of  course,  by  certain  native  tendencies  of  individual  human 


396  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

nature,  such  as  the  sexual  and  parental  instincts,  the  gre- 
garious instinct,  sympathy,  and  imitation.  The  acquired 
habits  of  social  groups,  also,  whether  we  call  them  custom, 
tradition,  usages,  or  folkways,  make  for  settled  and  har- 
monious relationships  between  individuals.  In  animal 
groups  and  in  the  lowest  human  groups,  social  order  is 
almost  entirely  an  outcome  of  the  working  of  instinct  and 
habit.  But  in  practically  all  human  groups,  except  the 
very  lowest,  we  find  another  factor  working  for  social 
order,  namely,  regulative  institutions.  While  a  natural, 
spontaneous  social  order  may  be  furnished  by  instinct, 
sympathy,  custom,  and  tradition,  the  actual  social  order 
which  we  find  in  human  groups  is  achieved  rather  by  con- 
scious means  of  social  control  over  the  individual. 

The  chief  of  these  regulative  institutions  in  human  society 
are  those  which  we  group  under  the  names  of  government, 
law,  religion,  morality,  and  education.  Government  and 
law  are  perhaps  the  oldest  of  the  agencies  consciously  em- 
ployed to  secure  social  control  over  the  individual.  While 
government  probably  began,  as  we  have  seen,  as  a  means 
of  control  in  time  of  war,  more  and  more  government  has 
extended  its  control  over  all  other  phases  of  social  activity. 
Some  modern  socialists  would  apparently  make  government 
absorb  and  direct  all  social  activities.  While  such  an 
extension  of  the  functions  of  government  must  be  regarded 
as  unsound  in  theory  and  unwarranted  in  practice,  yet  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that,  inasmuch  as  the  purpose  of  govern- 
ment is  to  regulate,  its  functions  are  "  co-extensive  with 
human  interests." 

Government  and  law,  instead  of  being  less  needed  in  the 
future,  will  probably  be  more  needed.  The  anarchistic 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  397 

ideal  of  no  government  is  without  any  good  scientific 
foundation.  Nevertheless,  government  and  law  are,  by 
themselves,  relatively  inadequate  means  of  social  control 
in  very  complex  societies,  because  the  control  which  they 
exert  over  the  individual  must  necessarily  be  over  gross 
external  acts.  Such  social  control  does  not  go  deep  enough 
to  secure  a  type  of  social  order  which  is  adequate  for  modern 
social  life.  Hence  society  needs,  in  order  to  achieve  any 
high  type  of  social  order,  not  simply  a  well-developed 
governmental  and  legal  system,  but  also  highly  developed 
systems  of  religion,  morality,  and  education. 

Religion,  like  government,  is  one  of  the  oldest  means  of 
control  in  human  societies.  As  we  have  already  seen, 
the  religious  sanction  when  added  to  institutions  gives 
them  a  stability  and  capacity  to  survive  such  as  hardly 
anything  else  does.  Personal  religion  prevents  too  wide 
a  variation  in  the  character  and  conduct  of  individuals.  So 
we  may  agree  with  Professor  Ward  in  declaring  religion 
to  be  "  the  force  of  social  gravitation  which  holds  the  social 
world  in  its  orbit."  When  religious  beliefs  decay,  the  social 
order  associated  with  them  most  frequently  decays  also. 
Hence  the  belief  that  society  in  the  future  may  be  able  to 
do  without  religion  is  as  unwarranted  as  the  belief  that 
society  may  be  able  to  do  without  government.  Instead 
of  religion  becoming  less  necessary  as  society  advances,  it 
becomes  more  necessary  for  the  simple  reason  that  there  is 
more  necessity  for  social  control  in  complex  societies.  The 
church,  instead  of  being  an  outworn  institution  in  human 
society,  therefore  has  before  it  a  field  of  social  usefulness 
in  the  present  larger  than  in  any  past  stage  of  social  de- 
velopment. One  of  the  greatest  practical  needs  of  modern 


398  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

society,  from  the  standpoint  of  social  order,  is  a  religion 
adapted  to  the  requirements  of  modern  life. 

Now,  as  has  just  been  implied,  religion  secures  its  social 
effects  chiefly  by  giving  sanction  to  ethical  standards 
and  ideals.  It  ought  not  to  be  necessary,  therefore,  to 
argue  the  need  of  ethical  standards  and  ideals  as  a  means  of 
social  control  in  modern  society.  The  moral,  as  we  have 
seen,  is  nothing  but  the  social  raised  to  an  ideal  plane. 
Proper  moral  ideals  in  individuals  and  proper  moral  prac- 
tices, or  virtues,  of  themselves,  would  ultimately  guarantee 
the  harmonization  of  relationships  between  individuals, 
for  the  virtues  are  what  mainly  bind  men  together  in  har- 
monious relationships.  As  we  have  already  seen,  higher 
types  of  morality  are  needed  as  societies  become  more 
complex.  The  simple  virtues  that  suffice  for  a  rural  popu- 
lation, living  under  simple  conditions,  are  found  to  be  no 
longer  adequate  for  complex,  urban  populations.  A  stable 
and  harmonious  social  order  cannot  exist  in  complex 
groups  without  high  character  in  individuals.  Now,  this 
character  depends  largely  upon  the  conscious  moral  ideals 
which  the  individual  accepts.  Hence,  the  great  importance 
of  moral  ideals  in  society. 

Of  all  the  methods  of  social  control,  however,  the  education 
of  the  individual  is  the  most  effective.  Human  character 
is  formed  mainly  in  the  plastic  periods  of  childhood  and 
adolescence.  Now,  education  furnishes  the  ultimate  and 
most  subtle  form  of  social  control  because  it  controls,  as  we 
have  seen,  the  formation  of  habit  and  character  in  individ- 
uals. Moreover,  education  has  this  advantage  over  all  other 
forms  of  social  control,  that  it  is  best  adapted  to  secure  a 
progressive  social  order.  Government,  law,  religion,  and 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 


399 


even  moral  ideals  tend  to  become  static,  but  education 
can  as  easily  adapt  itself  to  the  higher  social  order  which 
should  be  as  to  any  social  order  which  exists.  An  education 
which  adapts  the  young  to  the  social  life  before  they  partici- 
pate in  it,  is  therefore  the  wisest  means  of  social  control 
which  human  societies  can  devise. 

It  is  evident  that  all  these  different  regulative  institu- 
tions must  be  developed  to  the  highest  possible  efficiency  in 
order  to  secure  the  type  of  social  order  which  modern 
societies  demand.  One  other  factor,  however,  deeper 
even  than  these,  must  be  emphasized,  and  that  is  the  factor 
of  like-mindedness  in  individuals  which  Professor  Giddings 
has  made  so  much  of  in  his  sociological  theories.  Without 
such  like-mindedness  as  is  furnished  by  likeness  of  instinct, 
habits,  feelings,  desires,  and  interests  in  the  population,  Y 
social  order  would  be  impossible.-  But  beyond  this,  social 
order  demands  a  fundamental  likeness  in  the  beliefs, 
opinions,  and  ideals  of  individuals.  Here  comes  in  the 
whole  problem  of  social  assimilation.  Now,  present 
society  is  radically  divided  as  to  its  ideals  of  life.  Long 
ago  Comte  pointed  out  that  no  stability  in  our  institutions 
could  be  assured  as  long  as  there  was  disagreement  regarding 
the  fundamental  maxims  of  our  social  life.  One  of  the 
greatest  tasks  of  the  social  sciences,  therefore,  must  be 
to  bring  men  to  more  unanimity,  more  genuine  unity, 
in  their  opinions  regarding  the  meaning  and  ideals  of 
life. 

The  Theory  of  Social  Progress.  —  We  have  already  dis- 
cussed the  nature  and  causes  of  progress  in  the  chapter 
on  "  Education  and  Social  Progress."  It  is  only  necessary 
here  to  add  a  few  words  as  to  the  relative  importance  of  cer- 


400  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

tain  factors  in  progress,  a  topic  which  we  have  more  or  less 
considered  throughout  this  book.  Accepting  the  general 
idea  that  we  may  regard  those  changes  as  progressive  in 
society  which  secure  a  more  harmonious  adjustment  of 
individuals  to  one  another  and  a  better  adaptation  of  social 
groups  to  the  requirements  of  their  existence,  then  we  have 
the  further  question,  what  factors  determine  that  changes  I 
shall  be  progressive  rather  than  retrogressive  in  their  nature, 
and  how  may  these  factors  be  controlled?  This,  as  we 
have  seen,  is  the  great  practical  problem  to  which  sociology 
leads  up,  and  it  has  received  many  different  answers  from  the 
social  thinkers  of  the  past. 

On  the  one  hand  we  have  thinkers  who  find  the  active 
factors  in  social  progress  exterior  to  the  individual,  and 
even  some  who  find  them  to  be  entirely  outside  of  society. 
According  to  the  geographical  determinists,  the  determining 
factors  in  human  progress  have  been  certain  conditions  of 
climate,  food,  and  soil.  This  geographical  theory  received 
perhaps  its  fullest  expression  in  the  writings  of  Henry 
Thomas  Buckle,  who  endeavored  to  show  that  the  geograph- 
ical conditions  in  Europe  alone  were  such  as  to  favor  the 
development  and  persistence  of  a  high  type  of  civilization. 
Later  theorists  of  the  same  general  school  have  held  that 
the  pressure  of  population  upon  food  supply  is  what  gives 
rise  to  invention,  discovery,  control  over  nature,  and  all 
the  other  phenomena  of  civilization.  But  progressive 
evolution,  we  need  only  remark,  does  not  always  take  place 
in  society  when  physical  conditions  are  favorable,  nor  have 
the  most  favorable  physical  conditions  prevented  in  the 
past  social  retrogression.  We  must  rather  regard  geographi- 
cal conditions,  not  as  determining  factors  in  progress,  so 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  401 

much  as  opportunities  or  stimuli  to  social  progress  in 
certain  directions. 

Another  set  of  thinkers  have  held  that  race,  or  biological 
conditions,  are  the  determining  factor  in  the  progress  of 
society.  According  to  this  theory,  all  the  sources  of  social 
progress  are  given  in  the  biological  make-up  of  the  individual. 
If  individuals  receive  the  right  equipment  by  heredity,  are  of 
the  right  blood  or  breed,  social  progress  will  take  care  of 
itself.  The  more  extreme  eugenists  sometimes  make 
statements  which  resemble  these ;  but  as  we  have  already 
seen,  the  control  of  physical  heredity  can  solve  only  a 
small  part  of  our  social  problems.  There  is  no  reason  to 
believe,  therefore,  that  race,  any  more  than  geographical 
conditions,  is  a  very  important  active  factor  in  progressive 
changes  in  human  society.  Race  is  important,  not  as  an 
active  factor  in  progress,  but  as  a  condition  of  progress. 
The  potentialities  of  progress  must,  of  course,  be  in  the  stock 
before  they  can  be  developed ;  but  in  human  society  so 
much  comes,  not  by  the  way  of  physical  heredity,  but  by 
the  way  of  acquired  habit  and  intelligent  adaptation,  that 
we  must  beware  of  laying  too  much  stress  upon  the  im- 
portance of  the  biological  element.  For  example,  our  ances-tv 
tors,  three  thousand  years  ago,  were  probably  of  better  I\ 
stock,  physically,  than  we  civilized  men  of  to-day,  yet  they 
were  also  probably  barbarians  or  savages.  Social  progress 
evidently  comes  more  through  the  acquirements  of  individ- 
uals, passed  on  by  social  tradition,  than  from  purely 
biological  elements.  The  biological  element  at  most  fur- 
nishes merely  the  potentialities  for  social  progress. 

We  have  already  discussed  economic  determinism,  or  the 
economic  theory  of  social  progress,  in  criticizing  Marxian 


402  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

socialism;  also  throughout  the  book  we  have  emphasized 
the  importance  of  economic  factors  as  conditions  and 
./  stimuli  to  progress.  Of  all  the  factors  outside  of  the  in- 
dividual, economic  factors  are  without  doubt  the  most  im- 
portant, in  modern  social  life,  in  furthering  progressive  or 
retrogressive  changes.  Nevertheless,  from  a  scientific 
point  of  view,  economic  conditions  must  be  regarded  like 
geographical  and  biological  conditions  as  simply  furnishing 
a  basis  for  social  progress,  rather  than  as  the  active  element 
in  progress.  In  other  words,  even  the  most  perfect  eco- 
nomic conditions  would  be  but  a  preliminary  step  to  make 
room  for  the  higher  mental  and  moral  adjustments  which 
constitute  true  social  progress. 

Philosophers  and  religious  and  moral  teachers  have  for 
ages  emphasized  that  the  active  agency  in  human  progress 
is  man's  intellect,  and  that  the  character  of  human  social 
life  depends  largely  upon  ideas  and  ideals.  Much  ridicule 
has  been  poured  upon  this  so-called  ideologic  il  theory  of 
progress  by  the  advocates  of  materialistic  theories,  such  as 
geographical  and  economic  determinism.  But,  if  the  in- 
tellect is  the  supreme  device  to  control  individual  and  social 
adjustment,  the  ideological  theory  still  deserves  serious 
consideration  even  from  the  most  rigorous  scientific  stand- 
point. Many  of  the  advocates  of  this  ideological  theory 
have,  however,  laid  it  open  to  serious  criticism  by  making 
thought,  ideas,  and  ideals  not  so  much  instruments  of  social 
progress,  as  the  social  reality  itself.  Such  ideological 
theorists  have  lost  sight  of  the  concrete  life  of  societies, 
nations,  and  civilizations,  and  their  theories  deserve  to 
be  called  one-sided.  We  can  cordially  recognize  the  im- 
portance of  intellectual  elements,  ideas,  and  ideals  in  our 


THEORETICAL   SUMMARY  403 

social  life  without  indorsing  such  a  purely  intellectualistic 
view  of  human  society.  The  social  life  of  animal  groups 
is  modified  but  little,  if  at  all,  by  intellectual  elements,  but 
almost  wholly  by  the  influence  of  the  physical  environment ; 
for  this  reason  animal  societies  do  not  progress  at  all,  or 
very  slowly.  This  fact  alone  shows  that  the  capacity 
for  progress  in  human  society  rests  upon  man's  higher 
intellectual  development,  that  is,  upon  ideas  and  ideals. 
However,  it  is  the  interaction  of  man's  intellect  with  the 
physical  and  economic  environment  which  produces  prog- 
ress, and  not  the  abstract  evolution  of  ideas. 

We  have  repeatedly  insisted  that  the  ultimate  reliance  in 
social  reconstruction  must  be  the  education  of  the  young, 
and  Professor  Ward,  in  his  Dynamic  Sociology,  has  demon- 
strated once  for  all  that  education  is  the  initial  or  proxi- 
mate means  of  progress  in  human  society.  Yet  education, 
if  it  is  not  of  the  right  sort,  can  block  all  social  progress,  as 
we  have  already  seen.  Education  itself  must  be  controlled 
by  certain  ideas  and  ideals  as  to  the  meaning  or  purpose 
of  our  social  life.  Moreover,  education  is  not  so  much  a 
factor  in  progress  as  a  method  of  progress.  What,  then, 
is  the  sociok  gical  thec  -y  of  progress  ?  The  sociological 
theory  of  progress  mist  be  synthetic.  Sociology  finds 
some  truth  in  all  the  one-sided  theories  of  progress,  but 
it  regards  them  when  taken  singly  as  partial  and  inad- 
equate. This  is  not  saying  that  all  factors  in  social 
evolution,  and  in  social  progress,  are  of  equal  importance. 
Perhaps  we  may  agree  with  Professor  Dealey  that  race|\ 
economic  organization,  and  education  are  the  three  vital!  \ 
things  in  social  progress,  given  favorable  natural  resources  ;\  1 

U 

but  it  is  certain  that  two  of  these,  economic  organiza- 


404  THEORETICAL   SUMMARY 

tion  and  education,  must  be  guided  and  controlled  by 
ideas  and  ideals,  and  could  not  become  effective  without 
the  aid  of  government,  law,  and  religion ;  all  of  which  is 
again  equivalent  to  saying  that  any  scientific  theory  of 
social  progress  must  be  synthetic.  Social  policy,  in  other 
words,  must  be  broadened  so  as  to  give  proper  attention 
to  all  factors  in  the  social  life,  and  social  reform  movements. 
must  be  not  one-sided,  but  broad  enough  to  give  due  recog- 
nition to  each  factor  of  importance,  if  any  sort  of  satis- 
factory social  adjustment  is  to  be  reached. 

The  Nature  of  Society.  —  Three  great  historical  theories 
of  the  nature  of  society  have  been  more  or  less  held  by  the 
social  thinkers  of  the  past,  and  are,  to  some  extent,  still  held 
by  thinkers  of  the  present.  These  theories  are  the  contract, 
the  organic,  and  the  psychological  theories  of  society. 
Let  us,  finally,  briefly  consider  these  three  theories  of  the 
nature  of  society. 

The  contract  theory  of  society  is  the  view  that  the  unity 
of  the  social  life  is  wholly  a  matter  of  agreement  or  under- 
standing between  individuals.  According  to  this  theory 
social  organization  is  primarily  an  intellectual  construction, 
depending  upon  expressed  or  implied  agreement,  explicit 
or  implicit  contract,  between  individuals.  This  theory 
would  make  the  unity  of  the  family  life,  for  example,  to 
consist  essentially  in  contract.  Marriage  and  the  family 
would  be  simply  relations  which  rest  upon  the  agreement  of 
individuals;  so,  also,  all  the  other  institutions  of  society. 
The  manifest  weakness  of  this  theory  as  a  theory  of  social 
origins  has  led  many  of  its  recent  advocates  to  modify  it 
to  this  extent :  They  say  that  while  society  and  its  institu- 
tions may  not  have  originated  in  contract,  they  should 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  405 

nevertheless  now  rest  upon  the  basis  of  contract  or  agree- 
ment. Marriage  and  the  family,  for  example,  may  not 
have  originated  in  contract,  but  in  the  future  these  insti- 
tutions should  be  based  wholly  upon  contract  or  the  mutual 
agreement  of  individuals.  We  have  already  pointed  out 
the  inadequacy  of  this  view  by  showing  the  large  part  which 
biological  elements  and  psychological  elements  other  than 
the  intellectual  play  in  our  social  life.  As  we  have  seen, 
the  foundations  of  society  and  of  practically  all  institutions 
are  far  deeper  than  intellectual  agreement.  This  has  been 
true,  not  only  of  the  social  past,  but  it  will  also  hold  in  the 
social  future.  Society  is  not,  and  in  its  nature  cannot 
be,  merely  an  intellectual  construction,  for  it  is  a  phase  of 
the  life-process,  and  in  the  life-process  biological  factors  and 
forces  are  fundamental. 

The  organic  theory  of  society  is  largely  a  reaction  from 
the  contract  theory.  It  is  the  theory  that  society  instead  of 
being  merely  a  product  of  intellectual  agreement  is  wholly 
a  product  of  the  operation  of  the  blind  forces  of  organic 
nature ;  that  it  is  a  growth  which  has  come  about  through 
the  operation  of  biological  laws.  The  unity  of  society  is, 
therefore,  according  to  the  organic  theory,  in  no  wise  differ- 
ent from  the  unity  which  we  find  in  the  biological  organism. 
Society,  according  to  this  view,  is  essentially  an  organic  struc- 
ture, subject  to  the  general  laws  of  organic  growth  and  decay. 

This  pure  biological  theory  of  society,  likening  it  to  a 
biological  organism,  has  rarely  been  held  exactly  in  the  way 
just  stated.  Most  of  the  writers  that  have  adhered  to  the 
organic  theory  have  modified  it  in  some  way.  Neverthe- 
less, even  such  a  writer  as  Herbert  Spencer,  who  argues 
at  length  that  society  is  an  organism  or  a  superorganism,  / 


406  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

represents  society  as  a  sort  of  superhuman  organic  struc- 
ture, which  we  might  presume  to  describe  but  hardly  to 
control.  The  organic  theory  is  still  further  modified  by 
other  writers  till  it  becomes  little  more  than  a  means  of  em- 
phasizing the  unity  and  interdependence  of  the  social  life. 
When  this  is  all  that  is  meant  by  the  organic  theory,  there  is 
little  to  criticize  in  it,  except  that  it  often  suggests  mislead- 
ing analogies ;  for  the  resemblances  between  society  and 
a  biological  organism,  which  the  organic  theory  assumes, 
are  very  far  from  being  established.  The  organic  theory, 
however,  in  the  history  of  sociological  thought  served  to 
emphasize  that  human  social  life  is  a  phase  of  organic  life 
in  general;  that  in  it  biological  processes  and  forces  are 
fundamental;  that  the  unity  of  society  is  an  expression 
of  the  original  and  continuing  unity  of  the  life-process; 
and  to  this  extent  it  performed  an  indispensable  service. 

However,  the  leading  sociologists  of  the  present  accept 

the  psychological  theory  of  society,  as  it  is  called ;  that  is, 

that  the  unity  of  the  social  life  is  a  matter  neither  of  mere 

intellectual  agreement  nor  of  the  operation  of  blind  forces 

of  organic  nature,  but  of  the  interaction  and  interdependence 

in  function  of  individual  minds  in  all  their  phases.    As 

we  have  already  said,  a  society  is  a  group  of  individuals 

carrying  on  a  collective  life  by  means  of  mental  interaction. 

Social  unity  is  constituted  by  this  process  of  reciprocal 

mental  adaptation,  not  on  the  intellectual  side  alone,  but 

equally  on  the  sides  of  instinct,  habit,  and  feeling.    The 

social  life  is,  then,  a  psychical  process,  not,  to  be  sure,  in 

the  sense  that  it  is  purely  subjective,  but  in  the  sense  that 

its  significant  and  controlling  elements  are  mental.    The 

psychological  theory  of  society  leaves,  therefore,  ample 


THEORETICAL  SUMMARY  407 

room  for  all  other  factors  which  must  be  considered,  and  may 
be  held,  when  fully  developed,  to  represent  the  synthetic 
or  final  stage  in  the  development  of  psychological  theory. 

The  social  life  is,  then,  a  process.  It  is  a  process  of  living 
together.  In  this  process  of  living  together,  social  groups 
must  necessarily  act  as  units,  and  so  become  functional 
unities.  The  psychical  elements  of  impulse,  feeling,  and 
thought  —  and  their  expressions  in  communication,  imi- 
tation, suggestion,  and  other  types  of  mental  interaction  — 
are  the  necessary  means  by  which  this  process  of  living 
together  is  carried  out;  so  they  are  the  vital,  constituent 
elements  of  society.  If  societies  may  be  styled  organisms 
in  any  sense,  they  are,  therefore,  preeminently  psychical 
or  moral  organisms.  They  must  be  understood,  if  under- 
stood at  all,  not  in  terms  of  mechanical  causation,  but  in 
terms  of  life  needs  and  life  purposes. 

We  said  above  that  education  itself,  if  it  is  to  be  pro- 
gressive, must  be  controlled  by  certain  ideas  and  ideals  as 
to  the  meaning  or  purpose  of  our  social  lif  e.  What,  then,  is 
its  meaning?  Not  wholly  within  the  individual  life,  for 
that  is  temporary;  not  in  any  minor  group,  for  that  is  but  a 
fragment  of  social  life,  a  part  of  a  larger  whole.  The  mean- 
ing of  our  social  life  must  rather  be  sought  in  the  develop- 
ment of  humanity  as  a  whole.  All  the  great  and  lasting 
movements  of  human  history  and  of  our  own  time  have  just 
this  meaning  —  that  they  are  strivings  for  the  development 
of  a  humanity  all  of  whose  elements  shall  be  harmoniously 
adjusted  to  one  another,  and  to  the  requirements  of  exist- 
ence. Accordingly,  not  the  development  of  self  or  the 
dominance  of  any  class  or  group,  but  the  development  of 
humanity,  should  become  the  real  end  of  social  endeavor. 


408  THEORETICAL  SUMMARY 

This  end  is  alone  truly  synthetic  and  constructive,  because 
it  includes  the  development  of  the  individual  in  accordance 
with  the  requirements  of  a  progressive  social  life  and  the 
development  of  all  classes,  nations,  and  races  who  go  to 
make  up  the  whole  of  humanity.  For  the  individual,  the 
ideal  of  life  becomes,  according  to  this  view,  a  life  of  service 
in  which  he  shares  in  and  strives  to  realize  a  higher  life  for 
all  humanity. 

SELECT  REFERENCES 

For  brief  reading: 

ELLWOOD,  The  Social  Problem,  Revised  Edition,  Chap.  VII. 
ELLWOOD,  Introduction  to  Social  PsycJwlogy,  Chaps.  XII-XV. 
BLACKMAR  and  GILLIN,  Outlines  of  Sociology,  Bk.  VII. 

For  more  extended  reading: 

COOLEY,  Social  Organization. 

COOLEY,  Social  Process. 

ELLWOOD,  Sociology  in  its  Psychological  Aspects. 

GIDDINGS,  Principles  of  Sociology. 

GIDDINGS,  Descriptive  and  Historical  Sociology. 

HAYES,  Introduction  to  Study  of  Sociology. 

HOBHOUSE,  Social  Evolution  and  Political  Theory. 

MAC!VER,  Community. 

KELLER,  Societal  Evolution. 

Ross,  Foundations  of  Sociology. 

Ross,  Social  Control. 

TODD,  Theories  of  Social  Progress. 

SMALL,  General  Sociology. 

WALLAS,  The  Great  Society. 


INDEX 


Abbott,  Grace,  244. 
Abnormal  classes,  24,  299,  302. 
Accidents,  industrial,  200,  308,  310. 
Acquired  traits,  40-42,  64-66,   74, 

.3i5,344- 

Active  factors  in  association,  73,  401. 
Adaptation,  biological,  33,  36,  58. 
Adaptation,  social,  55,  61,  72,  74, 

374,  375,  392. 
Adler,  Felix,  91,  179. 
Agriculture,  139,  281,  283,  293. 
Altruism,  45-47,  67,  84,  126,  178. 
Americanization,  238-240,  267. 
Ancestor  worship,  117,  132-136,  139. 
Andaman  islanders,  103. 
Angell,  J.  R.,  59. 

Animal  family  life,  96,  97,  98-100. 
Animal  societies,  10,  36,  47,  389. 
Apes,  family  life  of,  100,  120. 
Archer,  W.,  273. 
Aronovici,  C.,  92. 
Aristotle,  97. 

Aschaffenburg,  P.  F.,  353. 
Association,  n,  12, 13,  36, 37, 47,  73, 

96,  388. 

forms  of,  n,  12,  76-79,  no,  128. 
Atavism,  345. 
Australian  aborigines,  103. 

Bachofen,  J.  J.,  101,  no,  in,  112. 

Bagehot,  W.,  213. 

Bagley,  W.  C.,  387. 

Bailey,  W.  B.,  210. 

Baldwin,  R.  N.,  353. 

Beliefs,  73,  79,  82. 

Bernstein,  E.,  370. 

Betts,  G.  H.,  387. 

Biological  conditions  of  social  life,  16, 
17,  34,  38-56,  58,  73,  93,  1 86- 
210,  360,  388-392,  401. 

Biological  point  of  view  in  sociology, 
47,  55- 


Biology,  16,  29,  58,  246,  401. 

Birth  rate,  decrease  of,  183-190, 199. 

causes  of  decrease  in,  191-197. 

in  cities,  289. 

Blackmar,  F.  W.,  27,  179,  408. 
Bogardus,  E.  S.,  75,  244,  407. 
Boies,  H.  M.,  353. 
Bolshevism,  25,  355,  364,  367. 
Bonar,  J.,  210. 
Booth,  Charles,  301. 
Bosanquet,  Mrs.  Helen,  91. 
Brawley,  B.,  273. 
Brissenden,  P.  F.,  370. 
Brooks,  J.  G.,  370. 
Buckle,  H.  T.,  246,  400. 

Calhoun,  A.  W.,  180. 

Capital,  355. 

Chapin,  F.  S.,  56. 

Character,    individual,   13,  43,  65, 

72. 

Charitable  institutions,  320-323. 
Charity,  309,  319-324. 
Child,  influence  of  the,  82,  96,  97, 

152,  177- 

Child  labor,  89,  178. 
Child  welfare,  82-90,  168,  177,  179, 

203. 

Childlessness,  82, 152, 196. 
Chinese  immigration,  241-243. 
Christianity,    influence    on    family, 
142-144. 

evolution  of,  80,  364. 
Cities,  growth  of,  139,  160,  275-298. 

causes  of  growth  in,  282-288. 

minor  causes  of,  286-288. 
Citizenship,    education   for,    25-27, 

240,  379-387- 

City,  the  problem  of  the,  275-298. 
City  life,  social  conditions  of,  288- 

293,  300,  337- 
the  reconstruction  of,  292-296. 


409 


INDEX 


Civilization,  it,  13, 37, 65, 69,  79, 85, 

108,  124,  125. 
modem,  145-148. 

Classes,  social,  evolution  of,  49,  302. 
Climate  and  season,  influence  of,  71, 

73,  118,  200,  306,  335. 
Coadaptation,  social,  37,  74,  392. 
Commerce,  285. 
Commons,  J.  R.,  215,  231,  244. 
Communication,  72,  75. 
Communities,  12,  76. 
Competition,  44^45,  48,  51-54- 
Comte,  Auguste,  15. 
Conflict,  43-45,  48-52,  362. 
Congestion  of  population  in  cities, 

206. 

Conklin,  E.  G.,  56. 
Conn,  H.  W.,  56. 
Consciousness,    social   role   of,    10, 

57>  59,  61,  71,  391,  392,  407. 
Contract  theory  of  society,  30,  138, 

145- 

Control,  social,  361,  368-370,  376. 
Cooley,  C.  H.,  75,  79,  91. 
Coolidge,  Mrs.  Mary  Roberts,  245. 
Cooperation,  37,  45-47,  52,  84,  206, 

207. 

Crampton,  H.  E.,  56. 
Crime,  326-353,  359,  373- 

among  foreign  bom,  228,  338. 

among  negroes,  258,  329. 

definition  of,  326. 

extent  of,  in  United  States,  320- 

33.2.. 

statistics  of,  329-335. 
increase  of,  33_3~335- 
cost  of,  in  United  States,  332. 
causes  of,  335-344- 
influence  of  physical  degeneracy 

on,  343. 

influence  of  heredity  on,  344. 
Lombroso's  theory  of,  345. 
remedies  for,  346-352. 
Criminals,  classification  of,  327-329, 

347- 

Criminology,  326. 
Cross,  Ira  B.,  370. 
Cultural  evolution,  37,  65,  69,  80, 

85- 
Cultural  groups,  n,  51,  102. 


Culture,  defined,  13,  69. 
Curriculum  in  education,  380-385. 
Custom,  65,  79,  94,  101,  213. 

Darwin,  29,  31,  33,  56,  97,  207,  357. 
Darwin's  theory  of  descent,  29-34. 
Davidson,  Thomas,  378. 
Dealey,  J.  Q.,  27,  91,  130,  180,  403. 
Death  rate,  decrease  of,  185,  186- 
188. 

causes  influencing,  198-203. 

of  negroes  in  United  States,  260, 
261. 

in  cities,  200. 

De  Coulanges,  Fustel,  133,  144. 
Defects,  individual,  303,  308,  310, 
313,  315-316, 317-318,  343,  348. 
Degeneracy,    in    cities,    290,    291. 

and  pauperism,  314-317. 

and  crime,  343. 
Delinquent  children,  330,  352. 
Democracy,  26,  80,  158,  165,  234, 
364,  386. 

education  for,  26,  381. 
Dependence.    See  Poverty. 
Dependent  children,  321,  322. 
Depressed  classes,  genesis  of,  302- 

304- 

Desertion,  family,  147,  312. 
Devine,  E.  T.,  325,  368,  369. 
De  Vries,  Hugo,  34. 
Dewey,  J.,  387. 
Discussion,  public,  179. 
Disease,  194,  205. 
Divorce,  135, 138, 140,  143, 147~i74- 

statistics  of,  148-151. 

distribution  of,  in  United  States, 

152,  153- 

grounds  for  granting,  154-157. 

causes  of  increase  in,  157-166. 

remedies  for,  169-175. 
Domestic  arts,  85-87,  175. 
Dowd,  Jerome,  273. 
Drummond,  Henry,  56. 
Du  Bois,  W.  E.  B.,  256,  273. 
Dugdale,  R.,  314,  325. 

Economic  conditions,  19,  39,  45,  48, 
50,  82, 84-90, 104, 117, 119, 120, 
122,  129,  139,  141,  146,  160, 


INDEX 


411 


168,  177,  185,  188,  191,  193, 
199,  203,  205-210,  215,  224,  239, 
202,  283-288,  306,  337,  353- 
370,  402. 

Economic  determinism,  129,  141, 
142,  209,  356-360. 

Economics,  18,  19,  86. 

Education,  and  social-  progress,  23, 

371-387,  403- 

as  a  means  of  social  reconstruc- 
tion, 26,  174,  176,  240,  270-273, 

347,  368,  371-387,  398,  403- 
of  women,  89,  160,  175,  195. 
of  the  negro,  263-264,  268-273. 
relations  of  sociology  to  science  of, 

23- 

social  function  of,  375-378. 
as  a  factor  in  social  evolution,  377, 

378,  386. 

socialized,  175,  368,  379-386. 
vocational,  384,  385. 
Educational  conditions  of  cities,  292. 
Educational  system,  defects  in,  158, 

309,  339,  379- 

Efficiency,  social,  25,  46,  52,  382. 
Elberfeldt  System,  320. 
Elimination  of  unfit,  34,  43,  50,  53, 

302-304,  317,  340,  371. 
Ellis,  H.,  353. 
Elmer,  M.  C.,  92. 
Ellwood,  C.  A.,  27,  28,  56,  91,  92, 

1 80,  210,  386,  408. 
Ely,  R.  T.,  370. 
Emotions,  67,  71,  74. 
England,  birth  rate  of,  187,  188. 

crime  in,  331,  335. 
Epileptic,  the  chronic,  316-317. 
Ethics,  21,  22,  166,  177,  383. 
Eugenics,  209,  235. 
Evolution,  definition  of,  14. 

current  meanings  of,  29,  34. 

bearing  of,  upon  social  problems, 
20-56. 

Spencer's  theory  of,  34. 

phases  of  universal,  35-37. 

cosmic,  35. 

organic,  36-46. 
factors  in,  37-46. 

mental,  36. 

cultural,  37,  65,  69. 


Evolution,  social,  15,  25,  36,  37,  45, 
47rSS,  57,  65,  70,  72, 392-395- 
factors  m,  38,  46,  71,  73,  74. 
survey  of,  47-55,  392~395- 
bearing  of,  upon  poverty  and  de- 
pendence, 302-304. 

Fairchild,  H.  P.,  210,  244. 
Fairlie,  J.  A.,  298. 
Family,  the,  12,  46,  76-179. 
functions  of,  in  social  organiza- 
tion, 76-85,  91. 
the    primary    social    institution, 

77,  80,  85. 

the  normal  family,  90,  176-178. 
function  in  conserving  the  social 

order,  82,  83. 

as  a  school  for  socializing  the  in- 
dividual, 83. 
function  of,  in  social  progress,  84, 

85- 

and  industry,  85-90,  129,  160^ 
origin  of,  93-*°9- 
biological  foundations  of,  93-97. 
origin  of,  in  human  species,  97-103. 
the   earliest   form   of,   in   human 

species,  106. 
the  forms  of,  110-130. 
historical  development  of ,  131-144. 
influence    of    Christianity    upon, 

142-144. 

instability  of  modern,  147-179. 
reconstruction  of,  166-179. 
decrease  in  size  of,  189-197. 
Family  life,  76-179. 
differences  between  that  of  man 

and  of  the  brutes,  98-100. 
of  the  lower  human  races,  100-107. 
Roman,  131-140. 
decay  of  modern,  147-151, 155-166. 

as  affecting  crime,  167, 336. 
Fay,  E.  A.,  315. 
Feeble-minded,  the,  316,  317,  321, 

327- 

Feeling,  66-68. 
Feminism,  158. 
Ferrero,  G.  L.,  353. 
Ferri,  E.,  353. 
Fiske,  John,  56. 
Flexner,  B.,  353. 


412 


INDEX 


Food  process,  47,  108,  388. 
Force,  limits  of,  364,  365. 
Forms  of  association,  76-79. 
France,  birth  rate,  188,  199. 
Freedom  and  social  evolution,  55. 
Freedom  of  speech,  179,  386. 
Free  love,  107,  108. 
Friedman,  E.  M.,  180. 
Functional  psychology,  57. 

Galpin,  C.  J.,  298. 
Geddes,  P.,  56,  109,  298. 
I  Geographic  influences,  71,  74,  118, 

248,  285,  306,  335. 
;  George,  Henry,  302. 
Giddings,  F.  H.,  28,  56,  408. 
Gillette,  J.  M.,  28,  91,  130,  298,  387. 
Gillin,  J.  L.,  27,  179,  408. 
Gilman,  Mrs.  C.  P.,  159. 
Gilman,  N.  P.,  370. 
Goddard,  H.  H.,  325,  343. 
Goodsell,  Miss  W.,  109,  144,  180. 
Government,  12,  17,  20,  49,  69,  74, 

82,  396. 

defects  in,  309,  338. 

nature  of,  365,  396. 

Greek  family,  131,  140. 

Groups,  primary,  76-80. 

Groups,  social,  10-12,  14,  36,  45,  48, 

5°,  73,  76-8o,  389. 
Gulick,  S.  L.,  245. 
Gummere,  F.  B.,  144. 
Guyot,  I.,  370. 

Habits,  acquired,  37,  64-66,  79,  142, 

165,  174,  372,  376,  396. 
social,  65,  114,  165,  392. 
«.  Hall,  Prescott  F.,  245. 
Hart,  A.  B.,  273. 
/  Hayes,  E.  C.,  27. 
Healy,  W.,  353. 
Hearn,  W.  E.,  144. 
Hebrews,  121,  131,  135,  144. 
Hegel,  G.  W.  F.,  142. 
Heineman,  T.  W.,  109. 
Henderson,  C.  R.,  325. 
Heredity,  39-42,  81,  315,  327,  344, 

346,  37i,  392,  401. 
racial,  235,  243,  246-248,  401. 
of  the  negro,  248-250. 


Heredity,  and  pauperism,  315,  316. 

and  crime,  344,  345. 
History  and  sociology,  17. 
Hobhouse,  L.  T.,  408. 
Hoffman,  F.  L.,  260,  274. 
Homicide  in  United  States,  331. 
Hourwich,  I.  A.,  245. 
Howard,  G.  E.,  109,  130,  144,  180. 
Howe,  F.  C.,  298. 
Human  nature,  58,  59,  62,  69,  73, 

107,  313- 

Hunter,  Robert,  325,  370. 
Huxley,  T.  H.,  46. 

Ideals,  sources  of,  70,  79,  80,  85, 

90. 

importance  of,  85,  174,  383. 
Illiteracy,  of  immigrants,   226-228, 

236. 

of  negroes,  263. 
and  crime,  338. 
Imitation,  63,  73,  140,  142,  214,  339, 

394- 

Immigration,  problem  of,   211-245. 
history  of,  into  United  States,  214- 

217. 

changed  character  of,  217,  218. 
distribution  of,  218-224. 
social  effects  of,  224-229,  239. 
into  other  countries,  230. 
restrictions  on,  231-236,  238. 
measures  for  Americanization,  238- 

240. 

Asiatic,  240-244. 

Imprisonment,  substitutes  for,  351. 
Impulses,  native,  61-64,  74- 
Indians,  North  American,  102,  103, 

110-113,  °6. 
Individual,  the,  13,  23,  42,  48,  78, 

146,  207,  308,  313,  317. 
and  society,  13,  73,  213,  371. 
Individualism,  48, 145, 148, 158, 331, 

386. 
Industrial    conditions,    among    the 

negroes,  262. 
and  poverty,  306-308. 
and  crime,  337. 

Industrialism,  146,  148,  160,  279. 
Industry,  13,  18,  44,  51,  85,  108,  140, 
146. 


INDEX 


413 


Industry,  and  the  family,  85-90,  129, 
146,  1  60. 

pastoral,  116. 

centralization  of,  284. 

See  also  Economic  conditions. 
Infant  mortality,  202. 
Insane,  the,  317,  321,  343,  344. 
Instincts,  human,  61-64,  97>  IO7>  247- 
Institution,  definition  of,  65,  77. 
Institutions,  bases  of  human,  63,  65, 

72,  84,  107,  165. 
Intellect,  68-71,  391. 
Intelligence,  36,  61,  68,  70,  382. 
Interaction,  mental,  10,  36,  57,  72, 

389,  393,.407- 

Intercommunication,  72,  75,  393,  407. 
Insurance,  social,  369. 
Intemperance,  as  cause  of  poverty, 


and  crime,  342. 
Invention,  20,  69,  73. 

James,  W.,  75. 

Japanese  immigration,  241,  244. 

Jenks,  J.  W.,  245. 

Johnston,  Sir  H.,  276. 

Jukes  family,  314,  344. 

Juvenile  court,  177,  352. 

Kallikak  family,  314,  343,  344. 
Keller,  A.  G.,  181. 
Kelley,  Mrs.  Florence,  91. 
Kellogg,  V.  L.,  56. 
Kelsey,  Carl,  56,  210. 
Key,  Miss  Ellen,  159. 
King,  Irving,  387. 
Kirkup,  T.,  370. 

Labor,  86-90. 

of  children,  89,  178,  307. 

of  women,  88,  160. 
Lacassagne,  341. 
Language,  51,  69,  79,  82,  391. 
Lauck,  W.  J.,  245. 
Law,  relations  to  sociology,  21. 

nature  of,  21,  325,  396. 

criminal,  329,  338. 
Laws,  social,  13,  209,  210. 
Leadership,  social,  166,  179,  382,  393. 
Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  144. 


Leeson,  Cecil,  353. 

Letourneau,  C.,  109. 

Lewis,  B.  G.,  353. 

Lichtenberger,  J.  P.,  179. 

Literacy  test,  236. 

Lombroso,  343,  345,  353. 

Love,  sexual  and  parental,  63, 84, 97, 

390. 
Lubbock,  J.,  102. 

McCurdy,  J.  F.,  144. 
McDonald,  J.  R.,  370. 
McDougall,  W.,  75. 
McLennan,  J.  R.,  101,  130. 
Maclver,  R.  M.,  408. 
MacLean,  Miss  A.  M.,  91. 
Maladjustment,  social,  14,  24,  304, 

327,  378. 

Malthus,  T.  R.,  39,  204,  302. 
Malthus,  theory  of  population,  205- 

208. 
Man,  fossil  remains  of,  33. 

social  instincts  of,  37,  46,  63. 
Mangold,  G.  B.,  210,  325. 
Marett,  R.  R.,  56. 

Marriage,  102,  103,  118-129,  *34> 
138,  143, 149, 169,  173,  175,  201, 
316. 

ceremony,  99,  134. 

forms  of,  118-129. 

higher  age  of,  162. 
Marx,  Karl,  141,  142,  302,  355,  357, 

358,359; 
Marxian  socialism,  theoretical  basis 

of,  356,  357- 

criticism  of,  358-365. 
Mass  as  a  social  factor,  181-184. 
Materialistic  conception  of  history, 

356. 

Maternal  family,  110-115. 
Matriarchy,  101,  110-113. 
Mayo-Smith,  R.,  201,  210,  245. 
Mendelian  inheritance,  40,  41,  318. 
Merriam,  G.  S.,  274. 
Migration,  causes  of,  211,  212. 

as  factor  in  social  evolution,  212- 

214. 

Miller,  K.,  274. 
Millis,  H.  A.,  245. 
Mind,  function  of,  58-61. 


414 


INDEX 


Mind,  social  character  of,  71-72. 
Mohammedan  peoples,  121. 
Monogamy,  97,  100,  102,  103,  106, 

118,  125-128,  147. 
Morality,  12,  22,  50,  54,  69,  70,  79, 

82,383,398. 

Mores,  the,  65,  174,  177,  179,  298. 
Morgan,  A.,  387. 

Morgan,  L.  H.,  101,  109,  no,  113. 
Mormans  of  Utah,  121,  124. 
Morrison,  W.  D.,  353. 
Multiplication,  38. 
Municipal  socialism,  294-296. 
Murphy,  E.  G.,  274. 
Mutation,  34,  43. 

Native  impulses,  61-64. 

Nature  of  society,  10,  30,  391,  404. 

Nature  peoples,  103,  266. 

Nearing,  S.,  325. 

Negritos,  of  Philippine  Islands,  103. 

Negro,  racial  heredity,  246-250. 

influence  of  slavery  on,  250. 

statistics  of,  in  United  States,  251- 
265. 

increase  of,  252-253,  261. 

social  condition  of,  255-260. 

industrial  condition  of,  262. 

political  condition  of,  263. 

proposed    solutions    of    problem, 

263-273. 

Neo-Malthusianism,  209. 
Newman,  Dr.,  203. 
Newsholme,  A.,  210. 
Normal  social  life,  14,  24,  91,  177, 
368. 

Order,  social,  83,  395~399- 
Organic  theory  of  society,  405. 
Organization,  social,  14,  49,  63,  65, 

78,  107,  371,  379,  389,  395. 
Origin  of  the  family,  93-108. 

of  government,  49. 

of  races,  248. 

of  society,  47,  388-391. 
Osborn,  H.  F.,  56. 

Page,  T.  N.,  274. 
Parental  care,  95-97,  126. 
Parental  instinct,  97-107. 


Parmelee,  Maurice,  353. 
Parsons,  Mrs.  E.  C.,  130. 
Pastoral  industry,  116-117. 
Paternal  family,  115-118. 
Patriarchal    family,    115-117,    132- 

135,  137,  H3- 
Pauperism,  definition  of,  299. 

and  degeneracy,  314. 
Penology,  326,  346. 
Philanthropy,  scienti6c,  24,  316. 
Philosophy  of  history,  18. 
Philosophy  of  socialism,  356. 
Political  science,  20. 
Polyandry,  118-120. 
Polygamy,  120. 
Polygyny,  120-125,  135- 
Popenoe  and  Johnson,  273. 
Population,  growth  of,  181-210. 

distribution  of,  278-281. 
Post,  L.  F.,  102. 
Poverty,  definition  of,  299. 

among  foreign  born,  229. 

and  pauperism,  299-325. 

extent  of,  in  United  States,  300- 
301. 

causes  of,  305-314. 

remedies  for,  316. 

Press,  as  an  educational  agency,  179, 
237,  339. 

influence  of,  on  crime,  339. 
Preventive  agencies,  313. 
Primary  groups,  12,  77-80,  91. 
Prison  statistics,  329-330. 
Prison  system,  349-351. 
Probation,  351. 
Progress,  social,  44,  84,  361,  371- 

387,  399-4°4- 
Promiscuity,  theory  of  primitive,  97, 

101-106. 

objections  to  theory  of,  104-106. 
Property,  private,  77,  82. 
Psychology,  relations  of  sociology  to, 

16. 
bearing  upon  social  problems,  57- 

74- 

theory  of  human  society,  358. 
Public  charity,  319-323. 
Public  discussion,  179,  364,  365,  393. 
Public  opinion,  174,  179,  237,  364, 

365,  393- 


INDEX 


415 


Race  as  a  factor  in  social  evolution, 

246. 

Races,  intermixture  of,  255-257. 
Rapid  transit,  296. 
Rationality,  69-71. 
Reconstruction,  social,  25,  26,  64,  71, 
91,  107,  166,  175,  178,  209,  236, 
265,    293,   364,   365,   368,   371, 
379-386. 

of  the  family,  166-179. 
of  population  policy,  209. 
of  immigration  policy,  236-245. 
of  negro  policy,  265-273. 
of  our  city  life,  293-298. 
of  education,  379-387. 
Reformation  of  criminals,  348,  350- 

352- 

Registration  area,  290. 
Religion,  117, 123, 127, 139,  141, 157, 

292,  369. 

Religious  conditions  of  cities,  292. 
Reproduction,  38,  81,  96,  108,  181, 

360. 

Restriction  of  immigration,  231-238. 
Reuter,  E.  B.,  256,  273. 
Revolution  as  means  of  social  recon- 
struction,   355,    363-365,    368, 

369- 

Richmond,  Miss  Mary  E.,  325. 
Robbins,  C.  L.,  387. 
Roberts,  P.,  245. 
Roman  family,  131-144. 
Romans,  103. 
Ross,  E.  A.,  27,  75,  408. 
Rowe,  H.  K.,  91. 
Rowe,  L.  S.,  298. 
Rowntree,  B.  S.,  301,  325. 
Rural  problems,  281-282. 

Saleeby,  C.  W.,  387. 

Schaeffer,  H.,  144. 

Schmidt,  144. 

Schopenhauer,  Arthur,  125. 

Science,  purpose  of,  27,  369. 

Scudder,  Miss  V.,  370. 

Selection,  artificial,  33,  53,  234-238, 

371,372. 
natural,  33,  36,  53,  55,  261,  304, 

378. 
Sex,  93-95,  201,341. 


Sexes,  differences  between,  94,  95, 

341- 
numerical  equality  of,  95, 121, 125, 

130,  225. 

Slavery,  49,  115,  120,  122. 
Small,  A.  W.,  28,  408. 
Smith,  W.  B.,  274,  325. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  92. 
Social,  meaning  of  term,  12. 
Social  causes,   115,   129,   140,   142, 

.  197,  313,  34°,  358. 
Social  change,  14,  no,  140-142,  146, 

392-395. 

Social  development,  process  of,  392. 
Social  dynamics,  16. 
Social  evolution.    See  Evolution. 
Social  instincts,  37,  46,  63. 
Social  life,  10,  12,  13,  37,  63,  77,  78, 

79,  81,  92,  388,  393. 
Social  order,  theory  of,  395-399. 
Social  organization,  14,  49,  63,  65, 

78,  107,  371,  379,  389,  395. 
Social  patterns,  80,  85,  9-1. 
Social  phenomena,  defined,  12. 
Social  problem,  denned,  91, 168,  359, 

365- 
Social  progress,  44,  84,  361,  371-387. 

. 399-4°4- 

Social  reconstruction,  25,  26,  64,  71, 
91,  107,  166,  175,  178,  209,  236, 
265, 293,  364, 365, 368, 371, 379- 
.386. 

Social  research,  369. 
Social    retrogression,    15,    85,    138, 

198,  364,  376,  400. 
Social  science,  17,  22,  27,  382. 
Social  service,  83,  84,  273,  382-385. 
Social  statics,  15. 
Social  surveys,  5,  92. 
Social  values,  19,  78, 82, 85, 383, 393. 
Social  work,  24,  368. 
Socialism,  relations  to  sociology,  24- 

26. 

in  the  light  of  sociology,  354-370. 
theoretical  basis  of,  356. 
criticisms  of,  358. 
substitute  for,  368-369. 
Socialization,  79,  83,  233,  379-386. 

of  education,  379-386. 
Society,  definition  of,  9-13. 


4i6 


INDEX 


Society,  the  study  of,  9-27. 
products  or  phases  of,  12-13. 
origin  of,  388-391. 
nature  of,  404-408. 
Sociology,  definition  of,  13-14. 
faulty  conception,  14. 
problems  of,  15,  16. 
statical,  15. 
dynamical,  16. 

relations  to  other  sciences,  16-24. 
to  biology,  1 6. 
to  psychology,  16. 
to  history,  17. 
to  economics,  18,  19. 
to  politics,  20. 
to  law,  21. 
to  ethics,  21,  22. 
to  education,  23. 
to  philanthropy,  24. 
to  social  reconstruction,  25-27. 
to  socialism,  25-26. 
and  social  practice,  23-27. 
bibliography  of,  27,  28. 
applied,  316. 
Spargo,  J.,  370. 
Spencer,  Herbert,  28,  34,  102,  109, 

207. 

Spencer's  theory  of  universal  evolu- 
tion, 34,  35. 

Standards  of  living,  161,  192. 
Starcke,  C.  N.,  109. 
Steiner,  E.  A.,  245. 
Stone,  A.  H.,  274. 
Struggle  for  existence,  43-45,   47- 

48,  51.  3°3- 

Survival,  social,  37,  46,  51,  105,  107, 
108,  187,  202,  374,  376. 

Thomas,  W.  I.,  109. 

Thompson,  W.,  210. 

Thomson,  J.  A.,  56. 

Thorndike,  E.  I..,  75. 

Tibet,  ti8,  119. 

Todd,  A.  J.,  180,  387. 

Towne,  E.  T.,  92. 

Trade,  285. 

Tradition,  social,  66,  79,  82,  213. 

Travis,  T.,  353. 


Trotter,  W.,  75. 
Turkey,  121. 

Uniform  divorce  and  marriage  law, 

169. 
Urban  population,   distribution  of, 

279-281. 

Variation,  33,  42,  no,  303,  327,  340. 

Veddahs,  103. 

Vice,  138,  140,  141,  155,  194,  256, 

259,3ii,3i4,345- 
Vital  statistics,   185-186,   189,   190. 

of  negro,  260. 

Vocational  education,  384,  385. 
Vogt,  P.,  298. 

Wages,  87,  177,  192,  232,  302,  369. 

Wake,  1 20. 

Wallace,  A.  R.,  33. 

Wallas,  Graham,  75,  408. 

War,  48-51,  115,  199. 

War,  the  Great,  25,  183,  188,  199, 

231,  236,  355,  369. 
Ward,  Lester  F.,  28,  373,  382,  387, 

397,  4°3- 

Warne,  F.  J.,  244,  245. 
Warner,  A.,  325. 
Washington,  Booker  T.,   256,   263, 

267,  274. 

Weber,  A.  F.,  297,  298. 
Weismann,  40,  315. 
Wells,  H.  G.,  370. 

Westermarck,  100, 103, 105, 109, 130. 
White  and  Heath,  387. 
Wife  capture,  115,  116,  122. 
Wife  purchase,  116. 
Wilcox,  D.  F.,  298. 
Willcox,  W.  F.,  148,  151,  180. 
Wilson,  W.  H.,  298. 
Wines,  F.  H.,  353. 
Woman,  position  of,  112,  115,  120, 

124,  136,  138,  158,  159. 
Woman's  movement,  158,  159,  195. 

Zueblin,  C.,  298. 
Zuni  Indians,  112. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  AT  LOS  ANGELES 

THE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


FormL-9 
lOm-S,  '39(7752) 


DC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A  000  529  098  6 


HM51 
E47s 
1919 


\NCH, 

LIFORNIA, 


ALIF. 


